Accumulating (dis)advantage? Institutional and financial aid pathways of Latino STEM baccalaureates

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Summarize

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
ACCUMULATING (DIS)ADVANTAGE?
INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL AID PATHWAYS
OF LATINO STEM BACCALAUREATES

by
Lindsey Ellen Malcom

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(EDUCATION)

August 2008

Copyright 2008 Lindsey Ellen Malcom

ii
DEDICATION

To my parents

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to begin by acknowledging my dissertation chair, Alicia C. Dowd, and my
committee members, Estela M. Bensimon and Harry Pachon. Thank you for your feedback and
guidance. Your dedication to equity in educational access and outcomes is an inspiration.
Thank you to Alicia for your support, encouragement and patience throughout this
journey. Your thoughtful questioning has truly made this study better. I am grateful for the
opportunities I have had to work with you and learn from you.
Thank you to Estela for being a wonderful mentor and friend. From my first day at the
Center for Urban Education, you have treated me like a valued colleague. Thank you for having
confidence in me—even when I did not. The level of trust you have continually put in me has
helped me grow as a person and as a scholar. We have come a long way since the Figaro Café!
I am grateful for the guidance of Professors Marvin Titus, Rebecca Callahan, Tatiana
Melguizo and Dominic Brewer.
Thank you to my past and present colleagues at the Center for Urban Education. I have
learned so much from each you. I am indebted to Arlease Woods who taught me how to show
grace under pressure. I am also thankful for the support of Edlyn Vallejo Peña, Amalia Marquez,
Dafne Espinoza, Frank Harris III, and Elsa Macias.
Thank you to my “cohortians,” Jarrett Gupton, Sean Early, Margaret Sallee, Hyo Jin Lim,
and Vicki Park. From Catalina Island, to cookie parties, to our dissertation support group
meetings—you have made my doctoral experience unforgettable.
I would also like to thank the Rossier School of Education, the Graduate School at the
University of Southern California, and the ASHE/Lumina fellowship program for funding support
as I completed my doctorate.

iv
Finally, I would like to thank my family for their unconditional love and support. To
Sylvain—your reservoir of love, understanding and corny jokes has been a constant source of joy
since the day we met. Thank you for having faith in me, and in “us.” Je t’aime.
To Kelly—I am grateful for your patience during those days and weeks when I had no
time to talk. Nonetheless, you were always there for me. Thank you.
To Mimi and Daddy—for as long as I can remember, I have been in awe of your strength.
You blazed this trail on which I walk. I could not have become who I am without your love,
guidance, and wisdom. Thank you for believing in me. To Daddy, thank you for giving me the
courage to follow my dreams. To Mimi, thank you for your endless support and invaluable
advice. I dedicate this study to you.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication ii

Acknowledgements iii

List of Tables vii

List of Figures x

Abstract xii

Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Cumulative Advantage Theory 2
Cumulative (Dis)advantage and the Persistence of Educational 5
Inequity
The Condition of Latinos in Higher Education 8
Furthering Disadvantage: Financial Aid and the Rise 11
of Student Loans
Overview of the Study 14
The Importance of Increasing Latinos’ Participation in STEM 19
Organization of the Dissertation 24

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 25
The Role of Context in College Decision-making: A Conceptual 28
Framework
Selecting a Path through College: The Importance of Hispanic 37
Serving Institutions and Community Colleges
Formulation of College Financing Strategies: Latino Students 52
and the Decision to Borrow
Latinos Choosing and Succeeding in STEM: Factors in the 65
Institutional Environments of Community Colleges and
Hispanic Serving Institutions
The Decision to Attend Graduate School: Understanding the 79
Effects of Indebtedness
Chapter Summary 92

Chapter 3: Research Design and Methodology 93
Research Questions 94
Research Approach 95
Data 97
Data Preparation and Management 104
Analyses 110

vi

Chapter 4: Findings 130
Institutional Pathways to STEM Bachelor’s Degrees 130
for Latinos
Financial Aid Pathways of Latino STEM Bachelor’s 145
Degree Holders
The Effect of Indebtedness on Graduate School Enrollment 169
among Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree Holders
Summary of Key Findings 193

Chapter 5: Discussion 196
The Importance of Community College Transfer and Hispanic 196
Serving Institutions to Latino STEM Baccalaureates
College Financing Strategies and Borrowing among 205
Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree Holders 205
The Effect of Indebtedness on Graduate School Enrollment 210
Limitations of the Study 214
Directions for Future Research 216

Chapter 6: Conclusions and Implications 219
Revisiting Cumulative (Dis)advantage: A Tale of Three Students 219
Complicating our Understanding of ‘Disadvantaging’ Contexts 230
for Latinos in STEM
Policy Recommendations 242

References 249

vii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: 2003 National Survey of Recent College Graduates (NSRCG) 100
Primary Variables of Interest

Table 3.2: Demographic, Educational, B.S. Degree-granting Institutional, 108
and Financial Support Characteristics of Analytical
Sample: Summary Statistics

Table 3.3: Possible Responses for Cumulative Undergraduate Debt 116

Table 4.1: Institutional Pathways of Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree 131
Holders

Table 4.2: Baccalaureate-granting Institutional Characteristics of Latino 133
STEM Bachelor’s Degree Holders by Associate Degree

Table 4.3: Location of Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree Holders 135
by Associate Degree

Table 4.4: Location of Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree Holders by 136
Institutional Pathway

Table 4.5: Institutional Pathways of Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree 137
Holders by National Origin

Table 4.6: Demographic Characteristics of Latino STEM Bachelor’s 139
Degree Holders by Associate Degree

Table 4.7: Demographic Characteristics of Latino STEM Bachelor’s 141
Degree Holders by Institutional Pathway

Table 4.8: Field of Study of Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree Holders 142
by Associate Degree

Table 4.9: Field of Study of Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree Holders 144
by Institutional Pathway

Table 4.10: Forms of Financial Aid Used by Latino STEM Bachelor’s 147
Degree Holders by Associate Degree

Table 4.11: Forms of Financial Aid Used by Latino STEM Bachelor’s 150
Degree Holders by Institutional Pathway

Table 4.12: Relative Debt Level of Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree 153
Holders by Associate Degree

viii

Table 4.13: Relative Debt Level of Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree 154
Holders by Institutional Pathway

Table 4.14: Relative Debt Level of Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree 155
Holders by Highest Parental Education Level

Table 4.15: Forms of Financial Aid Used by Latino STEM Bachelor’s 156
Degree Holders by National Origin

Table 4.16: Relative Debt Level of Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree 158
Holders by National Origin

Table 4.17: Conditional Probabilities of Using Financial Aid Forms 159
by Latent Class

Table 4.18: College Financing Strategies of Latino STEM Bachelor’s 162
Degree Holders by Associate Degree

Table 4.19: College Financing Strategies Used by Latino STEM 163
Bachelor’s Degree Holders by Institutional Pathway

Table 4.20: College Financing Strategies Used by Latino STEM 165
Bachelor’s Degree Holders by Demographic Characteristics

Table 4.21: College Financing Strategies Used by Latino STEM 168
Bachelor’s Degree Holders by Baccalaureate-granting
Institutional Characteristics

Table 4.22: Estimates of Average Treatment Effect of Relative 170
Indebtedness on Graduate School Enrollment, for Latino
STEM Bachelor’s Degree Recipients, Using Logistic Regression

Table 4.23: Logistic Regression Model of Graduate School Enrollment 171
including Financial Aid Indicator Variables for Latino
STEM Bachelor’s Degree Holders

Table 4.24: Logistic Regression Model of Graduate School Enrollment 173
including Latent College Financing Strategies, for Latino
STEM Bachelor’s Degree Holders

Table 4.25: Constrained Multinomial Probit Model of Relative 176
Indebtedness (by Level) for Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree
Holders

ix
Table 4.26: Cumulative Distribution of Estimated Propensity Scores 180
for Borrowing at a Low Relative Debt Level (Derived from
Constrained Multinomial Probit Regression Model
in Table 4.25)

Table 4.27: Cumulative Distribution of Estimated Propensity Scores 182
for Borrowing at a High Relative Debt Level (Derived from
Constrained Multinomial Probit Regression Model
in Table 4.25)

Table 4.28: Estimates of the Average Treatment Effect (ATE), Average 186
Treatment on the Treated (ATT), and Average Treatment
on the Untreated (ATU) Effect of Relative Level
of Indebtedness (Low, High) on 2000-01/2001-02 STEM
Bachelor’s Degree Recipients Graduate School Enrollment,
Based on Matching of Propensity Scores Derived from the
Multinomial Probit Model in Table 4.25

Table 4.29: Estimates of the Treatment Effects of Relative Level of 190
Indebtedness on Graduate School Enrollment

Table 4.30: Results of Mantel-Haenszel Bounds Sensitivity Analysis 192

Table 6.1: (Dis)advantaging Institutional Pathways for Latinos in STEM 240

x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: The Mechanism of Cumulative (Dis)advantage 4

Figure 1.2: The Intensification of Educational Inequities among Latinos, 2004 11

Figure 1.3: Latinos’ Share of the U.S. Population by Age, 2004 21

Figure 2.1: Perna’s Conceptual Model of Student College Choice 33

Figure 2.2: (Dis)advantaging Contexts Framework 36

Figure 2.3: Financial Aid Usage of Latino Undergraduate Students 57
by Institutional Sector

Figure 2.4: Latinos’ Participation Rates in Student Loan Programs by 59
Institutional Sector and National Origin

Figure 3.1: Pathways to the STEM Baccalaureate for Latino Students 111

Figure 3.2: College Financing Strategy Precedes Financial Aid Indicator Variables 113

Figure 3.3: Distribution of Relative Debt Dosage Level by Associate Degree 118

Figure 3.4: Model of Graduate School Enrollment for Logistic Regression Analysis 120

Figure 3.5: Covariates included in Constrained Multinomial Probit Model 125
of Relative Level of Indebtedness

Figure 3.6: Illustration of Application of Propensity Score Matching 126
Techniques to Estimate the Effects of Undergraduate Loan Debt on
Graduate School Attendance

Figure 4.1: Conditional Probabilities of Use by Financial Aid Support Mechanism 160

Figure 4.2: Estimated Propensity Scores of Borrowing at a 184
Low Relative Debt Level, by Treatment

Figure 4.3: Estimated Propensity Scores of Borrowing at a 185
High Relative Debt Level, by Treatment

Figure 6.1: Inez’s Story: Accumulating Advantage and Disadvantage 234

Figure 6.2: Alex’s Story: Accumulating Advantage and Disadvantage 236

Figure 6.3: Eva’s Story: Accumulating Advantage and Disadvantage 238

xi
ABSTRACT
This study contributes to our understanding of the institutional and financial aid pathways
traversed by Latina/o bachelor’s degree holders in fields related to science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM), and the relationships between those pathways and
selected outcomes of interest. Using the sociological framework of cumulative
advantage/disadvantage and the statistical techniques of latent class analysis (LCA) and
propensity score matching (PSM), data from the 2003 National Survey of Recent College
Graduates (NSRCG) enhanced with institutional information drawn from the College Board
Survey of Colleges and Universities, Barron’s Selectivity Index, and the Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System (IPEDS) were analyzed to describe the means through which Latina/o
STEM baccalaureates accessed those degrees, characterize their college financing strategies and
to understand how indebtedness, measured relative to typical levels of borrowing within the B.S.
degree-granting institutional context, influences these students’ decisions to attend graduate
school. The analytical sample reflects those Latinas/os who earned a bachelor’s degree in a
STEM field during the 2000-01 or 2001-02 academic years from a postsecondary institution in
the mainland United States.
Three primary conclusions can be drawn from this study. First, there is an association
among socioeconomic status, state policy context, and the pathways traversed by Latina/o STEM
degree holders, particularly with respect to associate degree attainment and attendance at
Hispanic-serving institutions. Second, this study finds that among Latina/o STEM bachelor’s
degree holders, three college financing strategies were employed (self support, parental support,
and balanced support), and that these strategies were associated with certain institutional
pathways. Third, this study finds that low and high levels of indebtedness as measured relative to
average borrowing at the B.S.-degree granting institution negatively affected graduate school

xii
attendance among Latina/o STEM bachelor’s degree holders, with the magnitude of the negative
effect larger for those who borrowed at relatively high levels.

1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

“So he was nice,” I whispered to my mom as we walked down the quiet
third floor of the Infinite Corridor.
“Of course,” she responded. “All of my friends are nice.” I turned my
head so she couldn’t see me roll my eyes. But for all of my exasperation with my
mother, I was grateful that she brought me to Cambridge to meet Charles Vest,
the president of my first choice college, MIT. The noise of the students hurrying
to class grew louder as we descended from the top floor, which was dedicated to
administrative offices. Moving my plastic MIT Coop bookstore bag to my other
hand, I clutched the banister to steady myself as I teetered down the staircase in
the 2-inch heels that my mother insisted I wear.
Immediately after returning to home, I taped the physics major
requirements and the felt MIT banner that I collected as souvenirs to the back of
my bedroom door. In the weeks and months to follow, I gazed at these relics of
my trip when I should have been doing my Calculus III homework. I was stricken
with a serious case of ‘senioritis’ and was anxious to begin the next chapter of
my life at MIT.
My dad gave me the run down on the courses I would need to take:
special relativity, statistical mechanics, quantum physics…the list went on. I was
excited, but it all sounded so hard. When I shared my fears with my dad, he told
me that he was sure I could do it. Perhaps seeing that I wasn’t satisfied with just
verbal reassurances, he also said that though it had been awhile since he had
taken those courses, I could call him for help if I had any questions on my
problem sets. His concrete offer of assistance eased my anxiety, and in the years
to come, I would cash in on it more times than I can remember.

I often joke that I was conditioned from birth to be a scientist. My most memorable
childhood Christmas gifts consisted of books about electricity, a chemistry set, and a microscope.
Each Easter, my family and I sojourned to the Air and Space Museum instead of church. Science-
themed birthday parties, during which my dad discussed surface tension as my friends and I blew
bubbles, were an annual tradition. Today, long after I left science to study higher education
policy, that MIT banner remains on the back of my bedroom door where it serves as a salient
reminder of the advantages my parents imparted to me throughout my life in the form of social,
cultural, and economic capital—particularly when I was making decisions about college.

2
I am the exception. Unlike many other underrepresented minority students who study the
sciences, the advantages accumulated by my parents placed me into particular contexts that
smoothed my pathway to study science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). For
example, I was aware from an early age what I needed to do to attend a selective institution
because of the familiarity of the higher education system that my parents gained through their
own college experiences. I was fortunate to attend well-funded public schools with wide-ranging
curricula including Advanced Placement courses. While applying to college, my parents helped
me to identify sources of financial aid, and were able to pay for costs not covered by scholarships
so that I did not have to take out loans. I turned to my parents and their social networks to seek
out advice regarding my major and undergraduate research opportunities. These experiences
enabled me to attend graduate school at an equally selective institution, which will result in future
advantages in terms of my career, professional and social networks, and earning potential.
Cumulative Advantage Theory
By sharing my personal story, I wish to illustrate the ways in which the advantaging
contexts in which I was situated led to future advantages in terms of my college decision-making,
experiences and outcomes. This process, in which “initial comparative advantages of trained
capacity, structural location, and available resources make for successive increments of advantage
such that the gaps between the haves and the have-nots…widen” (Merton, 1988, p. 106), is the
basis of cumulative advantage theory. Though cumulative advantage theory was originally
conceptualized to explain the hierarchal nature of the scientific community (Merton, 1968, 1988),
the theory has been invoked to explain the persistent educational inequities among
underrepresented minority students (Blau & Duncan, 1967; DiPrete & Eirich, 2006; Pollock,
2008).

3
In sociological applications of the theory, cumulative advantage is a mechanism that
propagates and furthers inequality between groups over time. Due to historical and ongoing
discrimination and denial of opportunity, certain groups maintain advantages in a variety of social
metrics (e.g., wealth, educational attainment, health). These advantages result in rewards, which
can then be turned into resources to acquire subsequent advantages (DiPrete & Eirich, 2006).
This cycle continues, resulting in growing inequality between groups across generations, with the
passage of time.
In the sociohistorical context of the United States, race/ethnicity acts as a primary
dimension along which inequality is perpetuated. Thus, generally, Whites maintain advantages
over Latinos, Blacks, and Native Americans. These advantages grow over time, resulting in
widening racial/ethnic inequities in educational and economic attainment.
Sociological applications of cumulative advantage theory also introduce the idea of
cumulative disadvantage (Blau & Duncan, 1967; DiPrete & Eirich, 2006) to reframe the
increasing inequalities between whites and historically disenfranchised groups as a deliberate
process during which minorities are placed in disadvantaging contexts that prevent the acquisition
of rewards, thereby limiting access to resources. The lack of resources available to minorities
confines them to these disadvantaging contexts causing them to accumulate further disadvantages
over time (DiPrete & Eirich, 2006) and constraining future educational access and opportunity.
The processes by which individuals accumulate advantage and disadvantage, referred to
hereafter as cumulative (dis)advantage, are illustrated in Figure 1.1.

4
Figure 1.1. The Accumulation of Advantage and Disadvantage

Educational researchers have used multiple theoretical lenses to understand the root of
stratification in educational opportunity and outcomes. Like cumulative (dis)advantage theory,
theories of human capital (Becker, 1993), social (Coleman, 1990; Portes, 1998) and cultural
capital (Bourdieu, 1986) focus on access to resources as an explanatory factor for disparities in
the economic and social outcomes of individuals. Human capital theory posits that differences in
the education, ability, and information, i.e., human capital, possessed by individuals are
responsible for differences in economic attainment (Becker, 1993). Social capital theory
(Coleman, 1990; Portes, 1998) focuses on the role of resources available to someone through the
relationships with members of his or her social networks in contributing to inequality (Portes,
1998). Cultural capital is complementary to social capital theory and looks to an individual’s
Accumulation of Disadvantage
Accumulation of Advantage
Initial
Disadvantages
(Parents’ educational
attainment, SES,
social networks, etc.)
Lack of Resources Disadvantages
time
Initial Advantages
(Parents’ educational
attainment, SES,
social networks, etc.)
Resources Awards/
Advantages
time
Source: Merton (1968, 1988) and DiPrete & Eirich (2006).

5
social status as signified by the non-economic goods, knowledge or skills he or she possesses as a
contributing factor to inequality (Bourdieu, 1986). Though theories of human, social, and cultural
capital differ in terms of the level of critique lobbed at the status quo, each theory claims that the
distribution of capital determines the structure and function of the social world, with the
maldistribution of economic, social and cultural capital acting as the source of social and
educational inequality (Bourdieu, 1986).
Though related, the concept of cumulative (dis)advantage differs from the more
commonly invoked theories of human, social, and cultural capital. Cumulative (dis)advantage
describes the process by which human, social, cultural, and other forms of capital function to
further inequality over time. The forms of capital operate within the mechanism of cumulative
(dis)advantage in that these forms of capital are resources available to the advantaged that are
mobilized to bring about future advantages and increases in capital (DiPrete & Eirich, 2006;
Elman & O’Rand, 2004). Thus, the constructs of human, social, and cultural capital are not
competing frameworks for cumulative (dis)advantage theory; rather, the forms of capital are
factors that fuel the process of cumulative (dis)advantage with which inequality persists.
Cumulative (Dis)advantage and the Persistence of Educational Inequity
Cumulative (dis)advantage theory predicts the persistence of educational inequity among
racial/ethnic groups. While college enrollment rates of historically disenfranchised groups have
increased over the past several decades, the gaps between underrepresented minorities and their
White and Asian counterparts in terms of access, persistence, and degree attainment continue to
grow (Bowen & Bok, 1998; Cabrera, Burkum, & La Nasa, 2005; Cabrera, La Nasa, & Burkum,
2001; Castellanos, Gloria, & Kamimura, 2005; Fry, 2002; Swail, Cabrera, Lee, & Williams,
2005). In science and engineering, these inequities are even more pronounced. For example,
while Latinos constituted 11.5% of total undergraduate enrollment in 2004, they earned just 7.5%

6
of all bachelor’s degrees and 6.3% of bachelor’s degrees in science, mathematics and engineering
awarded in the same year (National Science Foundation [NSF], 2005). The inequitable
representation of historically disenfranchised groups among science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) majors and degree earners are attributable to a number of factors, but the
framework of cumulative (dis)advantage provides a means for understanding the broader picture
of the systematic exclusion of minorities, and Latinos in particular, from STEM fields.
Rather than take the deficit-minded view that minorities are underrepresented in STEM
fields because they lack certain social, economic, and cultural advantages, I posit that Latinos and
other minorities accumulate disadvantages due to barriers constructed by discrimination, racism,
an inequitable K-12 school system, racially biased college entrance requirements, and rising
college costs, among other factors. For example, a student attending an urban, public high school
might accumulate disadvantages due to the larger class sizes, limited access to certain resources,
or the lack of availability of AP courses. These disadvantages can limit Latinos’ exposure to
science at a young age, their participation in advanced-level science courses in high school, as
well as access to higher education, and STEM fields in particular. By the time Latino students
are college-aged, the disadvantages they have accumulated because of their lower position in
society’s hierarchy and resulting context in which they are located reduces the chances of earning
a STEM baccalaureate.
The research literature reflects the stratified nature of postsecondary educational access
provided to students of color, particularly Latinos (Cabrera, Burkum, & La Nasa, 2005; Cabrera,
La Nasa, & Burkum, 2001; Fry, 2002, 2004; Swail, Cabrera, Lee, & Williams, 2005). Latinos are
concentrated heavily in the community college sector and in lower status and less selective
colleges and universities—institutional contexts considered to be disadvantaging (NCES, 2005).

7
Latinos are also underrepresented in STEM fields, which are considered to be higher status
disciplines (Schwab, 1978) and are advantaging in terms of economic outcomes.
Though previous research does not explicitly connect the mechanism of cumulative
(dis)advantage to the underrepresentation of Latinos in STEM, I began to consider the ways in
which cumulative (dis)advantage shape access for Latinos in STEM after my serendipitous
meeting with Ericka
1
, a Latina electrical engineering student.
Ericka, now working on her engineering degree at a highly selective research university,
transferred to her current institution from an urban, Hispanic-serving community college.
Growing up in a culturally-rich, but economically-poor urban area, she was an academically
strong student who earned good grades in high school. Ericka was unable to enroll in her first
choice college despite being accepted because her high school lost its accreditation. Left with no
other choice but to go to community college, Ericka decided to work towards transferring to the
nearby state university. She became interested in engineering after stumbling across a meeting of
her community college’s Mathematics Engineering and Science Achievement (MESA) program.
Ericka confessed that she did not know what engineering was until her involvement in MESA.
Yet despite her initial unfamiliarity, Ericka’s interest in engineering grew and she eventually
accumulated enough credits to transfer. She was extremely wary of applying to her current
university due to her apprehensions about the cost, and only did so at the insistence of her MESA
program advisor.
Ericka’s transition to the university was extremely rough, and she continually questioned
her decision to abandon the original plan of attending the less selective state university. She was
caught off guard by the workload and the sheer amount of time she needed to spend studying.
Ericka tried to adjust, studying for hours in between work and class, all the while suppressing her

1
Pseudonym is used to protect personal identity.

8
guilt for not spending much time with her family. Ericka struggled in large part because she was
unable to find a support network after transferring and was forced to work on her own. She
attributes much of her difficulty transitioning to her current institution to not knowing the “rules
of the game”; she had to learn things that other students took for granted such as how to study,
how to develop an educational plan, how to get an internship, or how to complete financial aid
forms. Ericka overcame these difficulties and is currently one semester away from graduation.
However, the pathway to her STEM degree was markedly different from the route that I traveled.
While Ericka is certainly a success story, it is important consider the role that cumulative
disadvantage played in her educational experiences. Ericka’s story is likely more typical than
mine; yet much of the research on Latinos in STEM fails to consider the ways in which
accumulated disadvantage situates these students in unique contexts that constrain their
educational opportunities. Recent work (Contreras, Malcom & Bensimon, 2008; Stage &
Hubbard, 2008) begins to focus on the linkages between cumulative disadvantage and Latinos’
access to STEM, but additional research is needed. The present study represents a first step in
addressing this gap in the literature by investigating the institutional and financial aid pathways
used by Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders and exploring the role of contextual factors in
shaping these students’ patterns of access, financing strategies and graduate school enrollment.
The Condition of Latinos in Higher Education
While Ericka’s story illustrates the ways in which cumulative disadvantage can constrain
educational opportunity and shape college experiences, an examination of the patterns of
educational access and outcomes of Latinos in higher education suggest that cumulative
(dis)advantage is at work, contributing to growing inequality. It is certainly encouraging that
Latino enrollment in colleges and universities more than doubled since 1990, going from 782,400
in 1990 to 1,809,600 in 2004 (National Center of Education Statistics [NCES], 2005). However,

9
this growth in college enrollment has not kept pace with Latinos’ growing share of the U.S.
college-aged population. In 2004, Latinos constituted 18.6% of 18-24 year olds (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2004), but only 11.5% of total postsecondary enrollment (NCES, 2005). While the
continual addition of immigrants to the Latino population may account for some of this disparity,
this factor cannot explain away the entire gap. The lower college matriculation rates among
Latino high school graduates also account for the inequities in terms of enrollment. Fourteen
percent of high school diploma recipients were Latino in 2004, but Latinos only constituted 9.5%
of college first-time freshmen in fall 2005 (Sable & Garofano, 2007). Latino students enroll in
college at rates lower than those of Whites, Asians, and African Americans, are more likely to
delay college entrance, and are more likely to enroll part-time (Arbona & Nora, 2007;
Castellanos, Gloria, & Kamimura, 2005; Fry, 2002; NCES, 2005; Swail et al., 2005), which have
been shown to be detrimental to persistence and degree attainment (Adelman, 2005; Arbona &
Nora, 2007; Cabrera, Burkum, & La Nasa, 2005; Cabrera, La Nasa, & Burkum, 2001). In sum,
while Latinos’ access to postsecondary education has increased over the past few decades,
disturbing inequities in enrollment and matriculation rates persist.
Although more Latinos have gained access to some sort of postsecondary education, the
nature of that access is also important to consider. Latinos are more likely to attend community
college than individuals from other racial/ethnic groups (Adelman, 2005), and 58.3% of all
Latinos enrolled in postsecondary education attend a community college (NCES, 2005). Those
Latino students who are enrolled in four-year institutions are concentrated in Hispanic-serving
Institutions (HSIs), which tend to be less selective, non-research colleges and universities (NCES,
2006). Although only about 8% of postsecondary institutions are HSIs, nearly half (48%) of
Latino students enrolled in institutions of higher education attend HSIs (NCES, 2002; Brown &
Santiago, 2004). While these institutions provide access to Latinos, they are considered to be of

10
lower status than more selective research universities. In this sense, community colleges and HSIs
could be considered to be disadvantaging contexts, and may be contributing to the accumulation
of disadvantage by Latino students.
Disparities in the degree attainment rates of Latinos and whites also reflect the ongoing
accumulation of disadvantage by this demographic group. The 6-year graduation rate of Latinos
who began college in 1998 was 47.6%—nearly 12 points lower than that of Whites. These lower
degree attainment rates reduce the pool of Latinos eligible to go on to graduate study, making the
underrepresentation of Latinos even more severe among master’s, doctoral and professional
degree holders. The figure below (Figure 1.2) employs the Center for Urban Education’s equity
index (Bensimon, 2004; Hao, 2006) to illustrate the growing gaps between Latinos’
representation in the population and their share of a number of educational indicators, including
STEM degree attainment.
The equity index (Hao, 2006) is a measure of proportionality that establishes how far or
how close a particular group (Latinos in this case) is from reaching representation on a particular
indicator of attainment that is equal to their representation in a specified population pool. If the
equity index equals one for a given indicator, Latinos have achieved equity for that educational
outcome. An equity index below one indicates underrepresentation, and equity index greater than
one indicates overrepresentation. The U.S. college-aged (18-24) population serves as the baseline
population for the figure.
Although Figure 1.2 was constructed using cross-sectional data, it clearly illustrates the
underrepresentation of Latinos among high school graduates, four-year and four-year college
students, STEM bachelor’s degree holders and STEM doctorates. Additionally, the figure
demonstrates that the degree of the inequity becomes more severe with each subsequent
educational outcome.

11
Figure 1.2. The Intensification of Educational Inequities in the Latino Population, 2004

Furthering Disadvantage: Financial Aid and the Rise of Student Loans
The disadvantages experienced by Latinos are often exacerbated by the high cost of
postsecondary education and the barriers these students face in securing financial aid. Changes in
federal, state and institutional financial aid policies over the past two decades reflect the move
away from the higher education as a public expenditure to a shared cost model (Heller, 2002;
Price, 2004; St. John, 2003). While the availability of financial aid has significantly expanded
during this period, much of this expansion has been driven by student loans (College Board,
2006). Unlike grant financial aid, which reduces college costs for students and their families,
loans actually increase the price of college due to accruing interest. Though student loans are a
0.80
0.22
0.34
0.42
0.56
1.00
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
College-Aged
Population
High School
Graduates
2-year College
Enrollment
4-year College
Enrollment
STEM
Bachelor's
Degrees
STEM
Doctorates
Educational Outcome
Equity Index
Equity = 1.00
Source: American Community Survey, 2004; National Center for Education Statistics, 2005; National Science
Foundation, 2004.

12
common college financing strategy for many students, research suggests that the potential and
actual burden of student loan debt may affect college choice, educational attainment and
professional outcomes among minority and low-income students (Perna & Titus, 2004; Price,
2004; Zarate & Pachon, 2006).
Federal appropriations for Pell grants and other grant programs have remained stagnant
over the past decade, while financial aid via loans (subsidized and unsubsidized) has increased
(College Board, 2006). At the state level, governors and legislatures continue to reduce funding to
postsecondary institutions. These changes in federal and state policy occur against a backdrop of
skyrocketing college tuitions for public and private institutions and rising student enrollments.
Lost amidst these sweeping changes have been students and parents who are expected to shoulder
an increasingly large share of college costs. The purchasing power of Pell grants and state grants
has declined over the past few years. The percentage of tuition, fees, room, and board at the
average public four-year college covered by the maximum Pell Grant declined from 42% in 2001-
02 to 33% in 2005-06 (College Board, 2006). While institutional grants have taken up some of
the slack, in many cases students are left with no choice but to turn to loans to finance their
college educations.
The increased role of loan financing is evident when comparing grant aid and loan aid as
a percent share of total aid for undergraduate students. In 1991-92, grants from all sources
constituted 57% of total aid while loans represented 41% of total aid. By 2005-06, loans far
outpaced grants in terms of share of total aid: loans comprised 52% share total aid compared to a
42% share of total aid for grants. Institutional policies often exacerbate students’ dependence on
loans. As tuition rates continue to rise, loans have become of the centerpiece of financial aid
packages offered to matriculated students, particularly at private institutions (College Board,

13
2006). Furthermore, as students progress through college, they are often required to take out
larger loans each year as their institutional grant aid declines.
The increased reliance on loans acts to limit access to higher education for low-income
and minority students, particularly Latinos, as these populations participate in loan programs at
lower rates compared to their White, middle-class counterparts. Latinos use loans to finance
college costs less often than any other racial/ethnic group. Recent studies (Fry, 2002; Santiago &
Cunningham, 2005; Zarate & Pachon, 2006) have shown that while Latino students feel that a
college education is important, the debt levels associated with attending college significantly
influence the educational experiences of these students (Burdman, 2005). Many researchers
(Burdman, 2005; De La Rosa & Hernandez-Gravelle, 2007; Monaghan, 2001) have argued that
Latino students, more so than students from other racial/ethnic backgrounds, elect not to use loans
to finance their college educations, and may opt to alter their college choices to attend less
expensive, and generally less selective colleges and universities (Kurlaender, 2006; Person &
Rosenbaum, 2006). Indeed, Latino college students are concentrated in low-cost institutions: 40%
of Latinos in higher education were enrolled in institutions with tuition and fees between $0 and
$1,000 and 36% enrolled at institutions with tuition and fees between $1,000 and $5,000. These
lower cost institutions are largely community colleges and less selective, non-research four-year
institutions. The concentration of Latino students in these institutions may go on to affect
graduate school enrollment and the labor market returns of postsecondary education (Burdman,
2005).
In sum, shifts in financial aid policy at the federal, state and institutional level act to limit
access to higher education for Latinos and may also hinder their educational attainment. As
tuitions rise and the purchasing power of grant aid decreases, students are left with no choice but
to turn to loans to finance college or attend less expensive, and often less selective institutions. In

14
light of Latinos’ low participation rates in student loan programs (Burdman, 2005; College Board,
2006; Dowd, in press; Price, 2004), the increased role of loans may widen the gaps in educational
and economic attainment between Latinos and their White counterparts.
Overview of the Study
Latinos’ current level of participation and achievement in higher education reflect severe
inequities. I have argued that cumulative (dis)advantage (Merton, 1968, 1988; DiPrete & Eirich,
2006) serves as a means for understanding the persistence of gaps in educational attainment and
the underrepresentation of Latinos in STEM fields. Fortunately, cumulative (dis)advantage theory
provides an “out,” through which the accumulation of disadvantages can be overcome.
Cumulative (dis)advantage theory is not deterministic; Merton (1988) explains that
“countervailing processes” can dampen the widening of the gap between the haves and have-nots
(p. 606).
Returning to the application of cumulative disadvantage to Latinos in STEM, despite
numerous obstacles, there are Latinos who successfully earn undergraduate and graduate degrees
in the sciences and engineering. Ericka is one such student. She was able to overcome her
cumulative disadvantage via individual characteristics such as high aspirations (Adelman, 2005;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991) and persistence (Arbona & Nora, 2007), and external factors such
as institutional support (Dowd, Bensimon et al., 2006; Rendón, 1994; Stanton-Salazar, 2001;
Valenzuela, 1999), and familial and peer support (Tierney & Venegas, 2006). Many researchers
(Arbona & Nora, 2007; Bensimon et al., 2004; Cabrera, Burkum, & La Nasa, 2005; de los Santos,
2005; Fry, 2002; Gándara, 1998; Gándara, Larson, Mehan & Rumberger, 1998; Rendón, 1992,
1995; Rendón, Jalomo, & Nora, 2000; Swail et al., 2005) continue to study the factors that aid
attainment among Latino college students, enabling them to overcome cumulative disadvantages,
yet few studies focus on Latinos in the sciences, mathematics and engineering.

15
In this dissertation, I address the educational problem of the underrepresentation of
Latinos in STEM by investigating the educational pathways utilized by Latino STEM bachelor’s
degree holders to better understand the role of community colleges and Hispanic Serving
Institutions (HSIs) in the production of Latino scientists and engineers. I focused on community
colleges as the entry point into the STEM pipeline because Latinos are most likely to start their
education in the two-year college sector compared to other racial/ethnic groups (Adelman, 2005;
Cabrera, La Nasa & Burkum, 2001; Fry, 2002; Phillippe & González Sullivan, 2005). Further,
Latinos are highly concentrated in community colleges that are designated as Hispanic Serving
Institutions (HSIs) by the U.S. Department of Education. Nearly 60% of Latinos in the American
higher education system are enrolled in a community college; and 40% of Latinos enrolled in
four-year institutions attend HSIs. Recent data from NSF shows that nearly 44% of all STEM
bachelor’s degree holders attend community college at some point in their career (Tsapogas,
2004), though it is unknown what proportion of these STEM degree holders actually transfer
from the community colleges to four-year institutions.
Community colleges and HSIs present an interesting challenge to our understanding of
the ways in which Latino students accumulate advantage and disadvantage. For example,
community colleges and four-year HSIs can be viewed as disadvantaging environments for
Latino students because these institutional types are less selective (non-selective in the case of
community colleges) and typically lower funded than more selective four-year institutions.
However, Latinos who attend these institutions certainly benefit from that attendance in the form
of increased earnings and job opportunity relative to those who do not pursue postsecondary
education. Disentangling the various ways in which cumulative (dis)advantage are associated
with particular institutional pathways, and the manner in which certain institutional pathways
bring about additional advantage or disadvantage is a central aim of this study.

16
In this study, I focused on Latino STEM degree holders who receive an associate degree
from the community college prior to earning the baccalaureate. While a large proportion of
Latinos transfer without earning an associate degree, recent changes in state transfer policies may
change this trend. Policymakers in Florida, and more recently Virginia, offer incentives to
students who earn the associate degree prior to transferring (Florida Department of Education,
n.d.; Virginia Community College System, 2008). These incentives include additional financial
aid and guaranteed admission to public four-year institutions. From the perspective of the policy
makers, increasing the number of students who earn the associate degree prior to transfer will
enhance the efficiency of a state’s higher education system. However, the implications of such
policies are unclear for Latinos in STEM. This study will contribute to our understanding whether
the baccalaureate-degree granting institutional characteristics of Latinos who earn an associate
degree differ from non-associate degree earners.
I also examined the differences in educational outcomes of Latino STEM bachelor’s
degree holders by institutional pathway. By investigating the differences in outcomes between
those students who earned the associate degree and non-associate degree earners, and those that
graduate from HSIs versus non-HSIs, I was able to understand the ways in which various
institutional contexts advantage and disadvantage Latino STEM degree holders.
In the present study, I investigated the college financing strategies employed by Latino
STEM B.S. degree holders and their borrowing behaviors in an effort to critically examine the
common characterization of Latino students as “debt averse” (Baker & Velez, 1996; Burdman,
2005; De La Rosa & Hernandez-Gravelle, 2007; ECMC Group Foundation, 2003; Monaghan,
2001; Nora & Horvath, 1989; Olivas, 1985, 1986). I also determined the effects of student loan
debt on the graduate school enrollment of recent Latino STEM bachelor’s degree earners.
Studying the institutional pathways and college financing strategies of Latinos who successfully

17
attained a bachelor’s degree in science, mathematics, engineering or a related field provides a
better picture of the institutional characteristics associated with overcoming cumulative
disadvantage. Similar to institutional types, student loan debt can bring about disadvantages and
advantages to students. The mixed findings in the literature regarding the effects of debt (Dowd,
2008) underscore the complicated ways in which debt can be advantaging or disadvantaging for
different students within various institutional contexts. This study aims to bring about more
clarity to the nature of debt for Latinos in STEM fields. Further, investigating the effect of
educational debt on graduate school enrollment for Latino STEM bachelor’s degree earners
enriches our knowledge regarding debt as a potential barrier to advanced study in the sciences
and engineering. In particular, I address the research questions below.

Importance of Community College Transfer and Hispanic Serving Institutions to Latino STEM
Baccalaureates
(1) Nationally, what proportion of Latino STEM baccalaureate recipients earned associate
degrees prior to transfer to the four-year sector?
(2) What are the institutional characteristics of the four-year institutions from which Latino
associate degree earners graduate, according to HSI status, selectivity, type (e.g. liberal
arts or research university), and control (public/private)?
(3) How do these characteristics compare with the institutions attended by Latino STEM
bachelor’s degree holders who did not earn an associate degree?
(4) How does the distribution of students across these institutional characteristics vary by
state and region and by Latino ancestry for Mexican American/Chicano, Puerto Rican,
and Cuban students?

18
(5) How do demographic characteristics of Latino STEM baccalaureate degree holders who
earn associate degrees differ from non-associate degree earners?
(6) And, what is the distribution of Latino associate degree holders across different STEM
fields of study in comparison to those students who do not earn an associate degree prior
to attending a four-year college?
College Financing Strategies and Effects of Borrowing on Graduate School Enrollment
(1) How does the use of various forms of college financial aid and financing strategies such
as scholarships, loans (institutional and familial), college work study, earnings, and
employer support vary by institutional pathway, national origin, and other demographic
characteristics among Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders?
(2) What are the effects of debt on graduate school enrollment among Latino STEM
bachelor’s degree holders?
To address the research questions outlined above, I analyzed the 2003 National Survey of
Recent College Graduates (NSRCG)
2
database enhanced with institutional-level data from the
2002-2003 College Board Annual Survey of Colleges and Universities, the Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), and Barron’s Profiles of American Colleges and
Universities. Incorporating multiple data sources enabled me to consider both individual-level
and institutional-level variables in my analyses.
The conceptual framework for the study draws upon sociocultural, social psychological
and economic theories regarding college and financial aid decision-making. The statistical model
includes variables related to enrollment in graduate school for Latino STEM bachelor’s degree
holders at the institutional and individual level. I employed descriptive analyses and the

2
The use of NSF data does not imply NSF endorsement of the research, research methods, or conclusions contained in
this report.

19
multivariate statistical techniques of latent class analysis, logistic regression analysis and
propensity score matching (PSM) to address the research questions. At the descriptive level, chi-
square tests were used to identify the differences in the educational pathways used by Latino
STEM bachelor’s degree holders with different individual characteristics (e.g., national origin,
gender, socioeconomic status), and the characteristics of four-year degree-granting institutions
attended by Latinos who earn an associate degree from a community college compared to non-
associate degree earners. I used latent class analysis in concert with descriptive techniques to
characterize the college financing strategies of Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders and assess
the differences in the strategies used in particular institutional contexts. The logistic regression
analysis allowed me to isolate the effect of cumulative undergraduate loan debt on the decision to
enroll in graduate school among Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders after controlling for the
influence of other contextual factors. Finally, I used propensity score matching techniques to
model the effects of educational debt on graduate school enrollment for Latino students by
simulating an experimental design. I compared the results obtained using propensity score
matching to the results of the regression analysis in order to evaluate whether PSM represents an
improvement over standard estimation procedures.
The Importance of Increasing Latinos’ Participation in STEM
While Latinos, African Americans, and Native Americans are all severely
underrepresented among STEM bachelor’s degree earners, the low degree attainment rate of
Latinos in STEM fields is particularly significant due to the demographic reality of the country.
Latinos are the fastest growing demographic group in the country and are projected to make up
nearly a quarter of the entire U.S. population by the year 2050 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004).
The relatively low level of educational attainment among Latinos, particularly in high-
demand fields such as science, technology, engineering and mathematics, is a multilayered

20
problem with many social and economic consequences. Not only does the current state of higher
education reify long-standing inequities for Latinos, it threatens the economic health of the
nation, particularly as Latinos stand to become a majority-minority in a number of southwestern
states.
Myers (2007) argues that as the baby boomers retire, the role of Latinos in the workforce
becomes even more important. According to Myers, the continued prosperity of the nation
depends on a social contract between younger, heavily Latino generations and older,
predominantly White generations. While Latinos are certainly concentrated in the U.S. Southwest
and California, nearly every state has experienced large gains in the proportion of Latino
residents (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005). An age cohort analysis of the U.S. population clearly
demonstrates that the U.S. is in the midst of a large demographic shift (see Figure 1.3). Figure 1.3
illustrates that Latinos’ share of the population increases with younger generations. If these
patterns continue as projected, in the next fifty years, Latinos will constitute nearly 25% of the
U.S. population. Clearly, these data demonstrate support Myers’ (2007) premise that the much of
the burden for the future social and economic well being of the country will rest on the
educational and occupational attainment of Latinos.

21

Figure 1.3. Latinos’ Share of the U.S. Population by Age, 2004

The U.S. economy’s growing dependence on Latinos is indeed a compelling reason to
increase the Latino science and engineering workforce. However, the underrepresentation of
Latinos in STEM is not merely a matter of economic importance. Increasing access and
achievement for Latinos in STEM fields is also a social justice issue. Osei-Kofi and Rendón
(2005) critique those who view the issue of opportunities in higher education for Latinos through
the lens of capitalism. In their eyes, increasing access and attainment of Latinos is not just about
fulfilling the “‘needs’ of the market” (Osei-Kofi & Rendón, 2005, p. 249), but is important to the
economic and social emancipation of this historically disenfranchised group. Osei-Kofi and
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2005, Tables B01001 and B01001I.
22.3%
6.4%
7.8%
10.0%
14.6%
19.5%
18.7%
19.3%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Under 5 5-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Age Cohort
Latinos' Percent Share of Cohort

22
Rendón (2005) warn researchers against reducing Latinos’ success in higher education to their
“perceived economic and political ‘use-value’” (p. 253). Osei-Kofi and Rendón’s admonishment
highlights the dual significance of the focus of the current study, as increasing access and
achievement for Latinos in STEM fields is also a matter of social importance.
The Heterogeneity of Latinos
Although I use the term “Latino” to describe individuals of Mexican, Central American,
Latin American, Dominican, Puerto Rican
3
or Cuban descent, I acknowledge the important intra-
group differences among U.S. Latinos attributable to the wide-ranging historic, social, and
economic diversity of this demographic group. The racial/ethnic categorization “Latino” includes
recent immigrants, the children and grandchildren of immigrants, as well as those individuals
whose ancestors resided in the present-day U.S. centuries prior to the country’s founding (Osei-
Kofi & Rendón, 2005; Washington, 1993). As such, the unique sociohistorical and economic
contexts from which Latinos of differing ancestry originate ought to be taken into account when
conducting empirical analyses and developing and applying theory to members of these
populations.
National origin and generational status, as well as more common constructs such as
socioeconomic status are important to include when theorizing or modeling the experiences of the
Latino population. For example, the educational experiences and attainment of a middle-class
Cuban-American student with college educated parents will not mirror that of a first-generation
Chicana, despite the fact that both of these individuals are often classified using the umbrella
designation “Latino.” For these reasons and to further understand intra-group differences in the
educational experiences and attainment of Latino STEM B.S. degree holders, I investigated

3
My analysis neither includes Hispanic Serving colleges and universities located in the U.S. Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico nor the students attending those HSIs due to the unique historical, social, and demographic context of Puerto Rico.
The study does, however, include those individuals of Puerto Rican descent who reside and studied in the U.S.

23
differences in the institutional pathways and college financing strategies of Latinos by national
origin to the extent that the sample sizes permitted.
In addition to serving as the source of difference, the multiple histories of Latino groups
in the U.S. have also shaped the geographical distribution of this population. Although Latinos
are increasingly represented in the population throughout the country, there are particular areas in
which Latinos are clustered. The Southwestern states of Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and
California are home to the majority of the U.S. Latino population, and these individuals tend to be
of Mexican and Central American decent (e.g., Salvadorian, Guatemalan) (Hobbs & Stoops,
2002; U.S. Census Bureau, 2005). However, significant concentrations of Latinos are also found
in Florida, New York, Nevada, Colorado, and Illinois, and these populations are often distributed
based on national origin (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005). Thus, the geographical clustering of Latinos
of particular national origins in historically and socially significant areas adds a layer of
complexity to the understanding of the U.S. Latino population and their patterns of participation
in higher education in general and the sciences and engineering in particular.
Latinos’ increasing share of the U.S. population and the resulting reliance on this group
for the nation’s continued economic prosperity signify the importance of addressing the problem
of the underrepresentation of Latinos in STEM fields. Many (National Research Council, 1999;
NSF, 2006) acknowledge that scientific innovation and technological advancement is central to
the U.S.’s economic future. The participation of Latinos in the STEM workforce is vital to this
advancement and fuels the demographic dynamism (Myers, 1999, 2007) capable of alleviating
the educational and economic inequities between Latinos and their White counterparts. In order to
further understand the problem of the underrepresentation of Latinos in STEM fields, it is
necessary to investigate the nature of the various routes to the STEM for Latino B.S. degree

24
holders, the means by which these students finance their college education, and the effect of
common financing strategies (e.g., student loans) on post-baccalaureate outcomes.
Organization of the Dissertation
In addition to this introduction, this dissertation consists of five chapters. Chapter two
presents a review of the literature regarding the postsecondary educational experiences of Latino
students in the sciences, mathematics and engineering. The literature review focuses on the
institutional contexts and cultures in which Latinos STEM majors tend to succeed, drawing upon
previous research on the importance of minority serving institutions to the production of minority
scientists and engineers, and the ways in which financial aid, student loans in particular, impact
the college experiences of Latino students and their educational outcomes. I also discuss the
methodological and theoretical limitations of prior research on Latino student attitudes towards
educational debt and the impact of indebtedness on educational outcomes. Chapter three details
the research design, including the research questions, description of the sample for the study, the
methods for addressing the research questions and the rationale for the chosen method. Chapter
four presents the findings of the study, Chapter five discusses these findings, describes the
limitations of the study and discusses directions for future research, and the final chapter offers
implications for policy and practice.

25
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

In the previous chapter, I argue that accumulated disadvantage situates Latinos in
particularized contexts that act to shape and often constrain postsecondary educational
opportunity. This claim is bolstered by the fact that much of the literature on Latinos in higher
education reveals the importance of context in understanding the cause of, and by extension,
potential solutions for abating, the ongoing inequities in terms of educational access and
academic success for this group. In trying to unpack the problem of the underrepresentation of
Latinos in postsecondary education in general and among STEM bachelor’s degree holders in
particular, previous research underscores the importance of considering the interactions between
the environments in which Latinos are located and their decision-making regarding postsecondary
enrollment, college financing, field of major and graduate school attendance (Padilla, 2007).
Countless numbers of reports, statistical briefs, and research studies authored by
educational researchers and policy experts explore the problem of the underrepresentation of
Latinos in STEM fields (e.g., American Council on Education [ACE], 2006; Committee on Equal
Opportunities in Science and Engineering [CEOSE], 2004; NSF, 2005). While the majority of
these studies certainly acknowledge the relationship between the historical denial of opportunity
of Latinos and their underrepresentation in STEM fields, often, these analyses do not consider the
impact of the nested social, economic, higher education and financial aid policy, and institutional
environments in which Latinos are located and their outcomes in STEM. Though the relationship
between Latinos’ access to and success in STEM and their environments may seem intuitive, the
nuances that the interaction of context and outcomes introduce are largely absent from previous
research on Latinos in STEM.

26
For example, existing research provides limited information regarding the ways in which
community colleges and Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs) serve as institutional pathways for
Latino STEM majors, despite their pivotal role in educating Latinos. The literature also fails to
address how these particular institutional contexts affect Latino students’ decision to major in a
STEM field and their STEM degree attainment. Existing research on Latinos in STEM does not
make linkages between the economic and financial aid policy contexts that act to shape the
decisions of these students related to pathway selection and enrollment. Instead these two strands
of research are separate in the literature, and questions of college financing strategies, borrowing,
and the relationship between indebtedness and graduate education rarely intersect with studies of
access and success for Latinos in STEM.
These gaps in the literature on Latinos in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering are
indicative of the myopic framework often brought to bear on studies of the underrepresentation of
this particular group in STEM fields. Rather than focusing on the ways in which an individual’s
educational decision-making results from interactions within his or her environment, research
regarding the participation of Latinos in STEM tends to center on the characteristics of the
individual (e.g., educational aspirations, interest in science, academic preparation/ability, and
persistence). While these characteristics undoubtedly play a part in Latinos’ access to and success
in STEM fields, an exclusive focus on the individual student without consideration of how her
decision-making is shaped by her context is incomplete. Further, the failure to apply a holistic
frame to research on Latinos in STEM has resulted in an incomplete understanding of the
multiple barriers faced by Latino STEM majors and has prevented researchers from recognizing
the ways in which nested social, economic, higher education and financial aid policy, and
institutional contexts shape the educational progression of Latino STEM degree holders. It is
particularly important to make these linkages when studying Latinos due to the way in which

27
accumulated disadvantage places them in unique contexts that operate synergistically to constrain
their choices related to postsecondary education.
The present study endeavors to broaden our understanding of the problem of the
underrepresentation of Latinos in STEM fields by bridging the nested contexts in which Latinos
are situated and STEM outcomes. I use a variety of quantitative methods to characterize the
postsecondary institutional pathways followed by Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders, the
college financing strategies they employ, and the effect of indebtedness on their enrollment in
graduate school. Applying a social ecological framework to guide my analysis, I focus on the
ways in which key contextual variables shape the patterns of participation of Latino STEM
bachelor’s degree holders. This study focuses on “endpoints” in the sense that I am looking
backwards at those Latinos who successfully earned a STEM degree. While the data and methods
used here do not permit me to delve into the everyday moments that lead to student success,
studying endpoints and understanding the interactions between context and the educational
progression of Latino STEM degree holders provides markers for further inquiry.
In this chapter, I discuss the literature regarding the relationships between key contextual
variables (e.g., socioeconomic status, higher education financial aid policy, and institutional
type/mission) and the four decision-making processes at the center of the present study: (1)
selection of institutional pathway into postsecondary education; (2) formulation of college
financing strategies and the decision to borrow; (3) STEM major selection and degree
completion; and (4) the decision to attend graduate school. These decision-making processes do
not occur in a linear fashion or independently; however, for the sake of clarity of the discussion, I
treat each one separately in the following sections. Before presenting the literature, I describe the
conceptual framework of my study, which is based on Laura Perna’s (2006a) model of college
decision-making.

28
The Role of Context in College Decision-making: A Conceptual Framework
The Evolving Picture of Choice in Higher Education
College decision-making – if and when to go, where to go, and how to pay – has been the
subject of considerable research in the higher education literature (Hossler & Gallagher, 1987;
Hossler, Schmit, & Vesper, 1999; McDonough, 1997; Paulsen, 1990; Paulsen & St. John, 2002;
Perna, 2006a; Teranishi & Briscoe, 2006). As revealed by Perna’s (2006a)and Teranishi and
Briscoe’s (2006) reviews of the literature on college choice, our view of college decision-making
has widened since the first studies on the subject. Initially, researchers broached the issue from a
human capital, rational choice perspective (Kinzie et al., 2004; Manski & Wise, 1983). Rational
choice is grounded in economic theory and essentially posits that students assess the costs of
higher education – both literal (i.e., monetary) and opportunity costs – and weigh those costs
against the expected benefits of that education. Many researchers have attempted to use this
economic analytical framework to understand how students make college enrollment decisions
(see Hossler, Braxton, & Coopersmith, 1989). Critics of rational choice theory point out that this
narrow economic framing of college choice makes the tacit assumption that all students have
access to information about the true costs and benefits of higher education and make sense of that
information in the same manner. Further, rational choice theory as applied to college decision-
making fails to account for the disparate levels of access to information, resources and
opportunity by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and generational status (Teranishi & Briscoe,
2006).
In an effort to overcome the inadequacies of the economic framing of college decision-
making, Hossler and Gallagher (1987) conceptualized college choice as a three-stage process:
predisposition; search; and choice. In the predisposition phase, students are exposed to the
possibility or idea of attending college. During the search phase, students participate in behaviors

29
and activities that affect their chances of college enrollment, such as visiting college websites,
gathering information about admissions requirements, and taking college entrance examinations.
Finally, in the choice phase, students make decisions about the institutions to which they will
apply. Though the three-stage framework offered by Hossler and Gallagher (1987) and later
expanded upon by Hossler, Schmit, and Vesper (1999) allows us to better account for the role of
information in shaping students’ college choice, it necessitates that all students follow the same
decision-making process, regardless of differences in levels of accumulated disadvantage based
on race/ethnicity, class, and generational status (Teranishi & Briscoe, 2006). While it is certainly
true that the ascribed characteristics of race/ethnicity and SES have been included as explanatory
covariates in the analyses of those employing Hossler and Gallagher’s (1987) framework, the
larger implications of race, class, and parental education on the context in which students make
decisions about college is not accounted for in the three-phase college choice model (Perna,
2006a; Teranishi & Briscoe, 2006).
McDonough (1997) and others (e.g., Hurtado, Inkelas, Briggs & Rhee, 1997; Nora, 2004;
Sewell, Hauser & Wolf, 1986; Teranishi & Briscoe, 2006) apply a sociocultural perspective to the
exploration of college “choice,” focusing on the role of social and cultural capital and status
attainment processes in shaping students’ educational aspirations and their college decision-
making. Researchers using sociocultural theory aimed to understand the ways in which resources
in the form of social networks, availability of information, and knowledge of admissions and
financial aid application processes impact college enrollment. These studies also explore how
disparate access to these resources within and between school and community contexts might
explain educational inequities. This perspective was a valuable addition to the body of work on
college choice in that it centered on the critical ways in which race/ethnicity and class intersect to
perpetuate inequities in educational opportunity and attainment. In a sense, these studies’

30
sociocultural perspective revealed that college “choice” is a misnomer, as low-income students
and students of color often make constrained choices at best, and are commonly left with no
choice.
The evolving conceptualization of college choice from the economic theoretical
perspective of rational choice, to a more nuanced view of choice as a multi-stage process (Hossler
& Gallagher, 1987; Hossler, Schmit, & Vesper, 1999), to the most recent focus on the role of
sociocultural constructs such as social and cultural capital (Lareau, 2003; Teranishi & Briscoe,
2006) and organizational habitus (McDonough, 1997), underscores the complexity of how and
why certain decisions about college-going and college financing are made. Each of these
theoretical perspectives facilitates our understanding of the factors that influence students’
college decision-making; yet none, taken on its own, provides a sufficient explanation of the ways
in which individuals and their situated contexts interact to shape and constrain “college choice.”
An Integrated Model of College Decision-Making
For these reasons, Perna (2006a) proposes the bridging of the rational choice/economic
and sociocultural perspectives so that we may understand the ways in which contextual factors at
the institutional, higher education policy, and broader societal levels work in concert with
individual characteristics to shape students’ college enrollment decisions. Perna (2006a) draws
upon previous research to create an integrated conceptual model of college choice in which an
individual’s perceptions of the costs and benefits of college and the decision-making process
based on the weighing of those costs and benefits are shaped by four layers of nested contexts: (1)
the individual’s habitus
4
; (2) school and community context; (3) higher education context; and (4)
social, economic, and policy context (Perna, 2006a). Perna also identifies potential factors in each

4
Habitus refers to an individual’s internalized thought patterns, behaviors, and tastes that reflect a his or her social
class (Bourdieu, 1986; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977)

31
level of context that act to shape the decisions a student makes regarding college enrollment.
Perna identified the contextual factors shown in her model based what has been shown to impact
college decision-making through empirical research. In the illustration of Perna’s (2006a, p. 117)
proposed model shown in Figure 2.1, the innermost layer of context (Layer 1) pertains to the
characteristics of the individual student, with each subsequent layer corresponding to a higher-
order level of context, further removed from, and yet still affecting that individual.
The first layer of the model, ‘individual habitus,’ includes the social and cultural capital
possessed by a student and his or her demographic characteristics (i.e., race/ethnicity, gender, and
socioeconomic status) that have been shown to influence college decision-making (McDonough,
1997; McDonough, Antonio, & Trent, 1997; Teranishi & Briscoe, 2006). School and community
context (Layer 2) corresponds to the type of organizational habitus (McDonough, 1997) available
to the student in the form of resources, institutional agents (Stanton-Salazar, 2001), and
information about higher education. More specifically, the concept of organizational habitus
refers to the college-going culture, or values that the school and community communicates
around college attendance and the patterns of college-going that the culture creates (McDonough,
1997). This layer accounts for the ways in which the presence or lack of resources in the school
and community setting can act to facilitate or hinder college decision-making (McDonough,
1997; Perna, 2006b; Stanton-Salazar, 2001). The third layer, higher education context, reflects the
multiple ways in which the characteristics and policies of postsecondary institutions shape
“college choice.” These could include the institution’s location, its mission, academic programs,
and institutional reputation and prestige. Additionally, institutional policies, such as tuition levels
and composition of financial aid packages offered by that institution are included in this
contextual layer (Perna, 2004). The highest layer in the model contains the social, economic and
policy contexts that act to shape college decision-making, for example, demographic changes,

32
shifts in the labor market, or policy changes at the state or federal level like the increasing
reliance on student loans or decreasing grant aid (Perna & Titus, 2004). The arrows in Figure 2.1
indicate that within these layers of context, individual characteristics like educational aspirations
and academic preparation, sociocultural factors captured by the concepts of social and cultural
capital, economic factors such as perceived costs and benefits of higher education, and external
factors like higher education policy, institutional characteristics, and broader social and economic
considerations interact to directly and indirectly influence college enrollment decisions (Perna,
2006a).

33
Figure 2.1: Perna’s Conceptual Model of Student College Choice

Social, economic, and policy context (layer 4)
Demographic characteristics
Economic characteristics
Public policy characteristics

Higher education context (layer 3)
Marketing and recruitment
Location
Institutional characteristics

School and community context (layer 2)
Availability of resources
Types of resources
Structural support and barriers
“Organizational habitus”

Individual habitus (layer 1)
Demographic characteristics
Gender,
Race/ethnicity
Cultural capital
Cultural knowledge
Value of college attainment
Social capital
Information about college
Assistance with college process

Demand for higher education
Academic preparation
Academic achievement
Supply of resources
Family Income
Financial aid
Expected benefits
Monetary
Non-monetary
Expected Costs
College costs
Foregone earnings
College
Choice
Note. From “Studying College Access and Choice: A Proposed Conceptual Model,” by L.W. Perna, 2006, Higher Education: Handbook of Theory
and Research, Vol. 21, p. 117.
34

In sum, Perna’s conceptual model of college choice provides a framework for
understanding the role of context in college decision-making. Rather than offering a one-size-fits-
all description of the process by which students make decisions regarding higher education, her
model allows for, and even demands complexity based on the unique, nested environments in
which a student in located. Further, the model acknowledges a student’s choice of college might
be constrained due to his or her context.
Although Perna’s framework was developed for the study of college enrollment
decisions, her model is also applicable to other types of decision-making related to higher
education. For example, concurrent to determining if and where to attend college, a student must
make a decision about how to finance college. Findings from previous research reveal that
multiple layers of context shape these college financing decisions as well. Similarly, a student
must decide his or her field of study—a decision influenced by the nested environments in which
he or she is situated. Also shaped by the layers of contexts identified in Perna’s (2006a) model is
the determination whether to pursue graduate study.
The notion of cumulative (dis)advantage that underpins the current study is
complementary to the contextual model proposed by Perna (2006a). As I explain in the
introductory chapter of this work, Latinos, as a demographic group, have accumulated
disadvantage due to the historical and ongoing denial of opportunity. These disadvantages situate
Latinos in particular contexts that lead to constrained educational decision-making, resulting in
future disadvantages. Those contextual factors identified in each layer of Perna’s (2006a) model
of college decision-making can exacerbate a student’s existing disadvantages by constraining his
or her educational choices, leading to further disadvantage. For example, a low-income student
who attended an underfunded, urban high school with no college-going culture might decide to
delay entry to postsecondary education, which has been shown to lower the chances of attaining a
35

bachelor’s degree (Adelman, 1999). In this sense, the lack of organizational habitus within the
student’s school context acts as a disadvantaging factor and leads the students to make an
uninformed and constrained decision that will likely lead to future disadvantages.
Alternatively, factors within the multiple contexts in which a student is located can lead
to advantages in terms of educational decision-making and outcomes. For example, a middle-
income student whose school incorporates preparing college applications into the curriculum and
provided other resources to assist with the college enrollment process will benefit from his or her
school’s organizational habitus and make more informed decisions regarding college. In this case,
the culture and practices of the middle-class student’s school context is advantaging, and likely
leads to future advantages in terms of college access.
The two examples presented above, though simplistic, illustrate the ways in which the
contextual factors identified in Perna’s (2006a) model of college decision-making can either
constrain their educational choices leading to negative outcomes, or positively affect decision-
making by enabling students to make informed choices that lead to more positive outcomes. In
short, the factors in the four layers of context identified by Perna (2006a) can be disadvantaging
or advantaging.
Figure 2.2 illustrates the way in which I conceptualize the relationships between a
student’s context and the four decision-making processes at the center of the present study. As
reflected in the figure, four layers of context act in concert to shape Latino STEM baccalaureates’
institutional pathway, college financing strategy, field of study, and graduate school enrollment.
In addition, as illustrated by the previous research, these four decision-making processes are often
related to one another, as reflected by the connecting arrows in the figure. The framework of the
study goes a step beyond Perna’s (2006a) model as it reflects the existence of disadvantaging and
advantaging aspects within each layer of context.
36

Figure 2.2. (Dis)advantaging Contexts Framework

The “disadvantaging contexts” framework illustrated above helped me to formulate
research questions regarding the institutional and financial aid pathways of Latino STEM
bachelor’s degree holders, to organize and synthesize the educational literature regarding the
contextual factors relevant to Latinos’ patterns of participation in STEM fields, to determine
relevant concepts and covariates to include in my analysis, and by serving as an interpretive lens
through which I view my findings.
In the third chapter of this work, I describe the ways in which I account for the layered
contextual factors in my investigation of Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders. However, in
Social, Political and Economic Context
Higher Education and Financial Aid
Policy Context
Institutional Context
Individual Characteristics
Institutional
Pathway
College
Financing
Strategy
STEM Field of
Study
Graduate School
Enrollment
Note. Adapted from Perna (2006a).
Disadvantaging Context
Advantaging Context
Legend
37

the remainder of the present chapter, I review the research literature regarding Latinos and the
four key decision-making processes at the center of this study: (1) the selection of an institutional
pathway through postsecondary education; (2) the development of a college financing strategy
and the decision to borrow; (3) the decision to pursue and complete a STEM bachelor’s degree;
and (4) the choice to attend graduate school.
Selecting a Path through College: The Importance of Hispanic Serving Institutions and
Community Colleges
Over the past three decades, Latinos’ have seen a marked increase in their access to
higher education, with higher proportions of Latinos enrolling in postsecondary institutions
(NCES, 2002). However, there remain disturbing inequities in the patterns of this participation.
The vast majority of Latinos find themselves at the lower portion of the severely stratified U.S.
higher education system, concentrated in open-access community colleges and less-selective
Hispanic serving institutions (NCES, 2002). Nearly 60% of Latinos are enrolled in a community
college, and almost 40% of Latinos in four-year institutions attend HSIs (NCES, 2002). Previous
research points to a multitude of factors that contribute to Latinos’ concentration in the
community college and four-year HSI pathways. These factors, which operate within four
different layers of context: (1) individual; (2) school/community; (3) higher education
institutional; and (4) social, economic, and policy context, are discussed below.
Contextual Factors Contributing to Latinos’ Concentration in Community Colleges
Individual characteristics. Several researchers have attempted to understand why Latinos
are so highly concentrated in the community college sector, and determine the reasons that lead
Latinos to be more likely to begin postsecondary education in a two-year institution than any
other racial/ethnic groups (Adelman, 2005). Some of these studies focus on student-level
characteristics, such as academic preparation, educational aspirations, the possession of college
38

knowledge, and access to resources including social, cultural, and economic capital, as the cause
of high-levels of community college attendance among Latinos.
Community colleges are open-access institutions, without the battery of admissions
requirements like standardized test scores and high school transcripts common to most four-year
institutions. This has led some to posit that Latino high school graduates choose to enroll in
community colleges because they lack adequate academic preparation to enter four-year colleges
or universities (Adelman, 2005). While this seems to be a plausible explanation, researchers have
found that among Latinos, academic preparation and high school achievement is not a predictor
of the type of postsecondary institution in which students enroll (Kurlaender, 2006). Further,
college-prepared Latinos are more likely to enroll in community colleges than students with
similar levels of preparation from other racial/ethnic groups (Admon, 2006; Fry, 2004;
Kurlaender, 2006).
Because Latino students seem to be enrolling in community colleges despite being
prepared to enter four-year institutions, it is reasonable to investigate their educational
aspirations. Do Latinos who enroll in community colleges do so because they do not wish to earn
a bachelor’s degree? Several researchers have sought to determine whether uncertainty in
educational plans and goals (Grubb, 1991) lead to the high concentrations of Latinos in the
community college sector. While it is true that Latinos tend to delay entry to postsecondary
education (Rendón & Garza, 1996; Swail, Cabrera & Lee, 2004), this is not necessarily an
indication of low aspirations. High proportions of Latino students who enroll in community
college express a desire to earn a bachelor’s degree (Admon, 2006; Swail, Cabrera, & Lee, 2004;
Kurlaender, 2006). Even among Latino students who have taken steps necessary to attend a four-
year institution such as taking the SAT or ACT, community college enrollment is relatively
common (Kurlaender, 2006). Though this does not constitute definitive evidence, previous
39

research indicates that Latino students enroll in community colleges at higher rates than students
from other racial/ethnic groups despite being academically prepared, having high educational
aspirations, and fulfilling admissions requirements for four-year institutions, such as taking
college entrance examinations.
Other researchers have focused on issues of class and socioeconomic status to understand
the reasons that lead Latinos to enroll in community colleges in such high proportions.
Socioeconomic status is typically correlated with the possession of college knowledge, including
information about the advantages of attending four-year institutions, financial aid information, as
well as access to financial resources (McDonough, 1997; Price, 2004; Tierney & Venegas, 2006;
Venegas, 2006; Price, 2004). For example, transfer rates among all community college students
are low (Dougherty & Kienzl, 2006; Grubb, 1991; Goldrick-Rab, 2006), which poses a potential
barrier for students who wish to earn a bachelor’s degree. It is possible, however, that first-
generation students might not be aware of the potential of being “diverted” from achieving their
educational goals while at a community college (Goldrick-Rab, 2006). This has led some to posit
that if Latino students, who tend to be first-generation students more so than their white
counterparts (Stanton-Salazar, 2001), knew that direct entrance to a four-year institution was
advantageous to their educational attainment, they might bypass the community college sector
altogether.
Community colleges are the lowest-priced postsecondary option available, with average
tuition of $1,977, compared to an average in-state tuition of $3,400 for public four-year
institutions (NCES, 2005). This cost difference between the two-year institutions and public,
four-year colleges and universities has led researchers to explore the impact of price on college
enrollment decisions (Paulsen & St. John, 2002; Perna, 2004; St. John, 2001; St. John, Paulsen, &
Carter, 2005). Though most of these studies focus on all students’ enrollment decisions, they have
40

found that price is of great concern, particularly among Latinos (Immerwahr, 2003; Tomás Rivera
Policy Institute, 2004; Zarate & Pachon, 2006). Kurlaender’s (2006) study of Latinos enrolling in
community colleges revealed that while socioeconomic status was a predictor of community
college enrollment, among Latinos, whites, and Blacks of the same SES, the Latino students were
much more likely to enroll in a community college. Further, even Latinos from affluent
households enrolled in community colleges more commonly than whites and Blacks from high
SES backgrounds. Thus, while the low tuition levels of community colleges can account for the
some of the attraction to the two-year sector, price does not fully explain why Latinos attend
community colleges in such high proportions.
The impact of price on the decision to attend community colleges ought not be divorced
from a discussion of the well-documented informational barriers to financial aid access among
Latino students (Admon, 2006; McDonough, 2004; McDonough & Calderone, 2006; Tierney &
Venegas, 2006; Tomás Rivera Policy Institute, 2004; Tornatzky, Cutler, & Lee, 2002; Venegas,
2006). These barriers act to limit Latino students’ awareness of and access to financial aid that
could defray college costs. Financial aid and perceptions of college costs go hand in hand, and
Admon’s (2007) extensive study of the factors that lead to such high levels of community college
attendance among Latinos illustrated that a low level of awareness of financial aid is associated
with community college enrollment. The factors that lead to Latinos’ patterns of financial aid are
discussed later in this chapter; however, the entanglement of access to information about financial
aid and the decision to attend community college bears mentioning here.
School and community context. In addition to exploring the individual-level
characteristics that might lead Latino students to enroll in community colleges in such high
proportions, researchers have studied factors in the school and community contexts that cause
community college attendance. In particular, secondary school quality (Karabel, 1972), and
41

resources (Morrow & Torres, 1995) have been identified as two high school characteristics that
can function to perpetuate and reproduce educational inequities among low-income students of
color. Latinos on average, attend schools within districts that are underfunded and experience
wide disparities in terms of instructional resources, college course offerings (e.g., Advanced
Placement courses), quality of teachers, and class size. These disparities limit the students’
opportunities and exposure to college preparatory curricula and may serve to funnel Latino
students into the community college sector (Goldrick-Rab, 2006; Kurlaender, 2006; Morrow &
Torres, 1995; Person & Rosenbaum, 2006; Venezia, Kirst, & Antonio, 2003).
Latino students in lower quality schools may also suffer the consequences of inadequate
levels of college counseling, including incomplete or inaccurate information about college
(McDonough, 1997; Tierney & Venegas, 2006). In urban high schools, which enroll large
numbers of Latino students, student-to-counselor ratios are quite large. Thus, Latino students in
these high schools, many of whom would be first-generation college students (Stanton-Salazar,
2001), simply cannot get the type of counseling necessary to inform them of the range of
available college options and the advantages and disadvantages of each. Even those school
environments within which counseling is available, the danger of the under-utilization of high
school counselors remains. This phenomenon is particularly common among first-generation
college students, who tend to rely on the advice of parents or other adults in the community to
inform their college decision-making (Fuerstenau, 2002). As a result, first-generation Latino
students are susceptible to making ill-informed decisions about college, which might be a
contributing factor to Latinos’ high concentrations in the community college sector.
Hallinan (2000) complicates the linkage between school quality and community college
attendance further, by arguing that even those Latinos who attend schools with college
preparatory curricula and higher levels of resources may not realize the benefits of those
42

resources due to tracking. Latinos and other students of color are disproportionately placed into
non-academic tracks in high school and those students in non-academic tracks are more likely to
attend community college than those graduating from academic tracks (Lavin & Hyllegard,
1996). Thus, the intersection of socioeconomic status and race within the high school context acts
to disadvantage Latino students, increasing their chances of enrolling in the community college
sector.
McDonough’s (1997) notion of ‘organizational habitus’ is an important
school/community contextual factor that has been shown to impact Latino students’ college
decision-making. Student aspirations and expectations as they relate to college-going are largely
shaped by the history of achievement in the high school and community context, or its
organizational habitus (McDonough, 1997; Person & Rosenbaum, 2006). So for example, if
previous graduates from a particular high school overwhelmingly attend community college, this
trend of community college attendance will shape that high school’s students’ perceptions about
their postsecondary options and constrain college decision-making. Latinos, who tend to be
concentrated in underperforming urban high schools, are especially vulnerable to the negative
effects of organizational habitus. The concept of organizational habitus also extends to the
community in which Latinos are located. Admon (2006) and Person and Rosenbaum (2006)
found that Latinos’ high concentration in community colleges could be linked back to the limited
information about postsecondary education within their communities due to community
members’ historical patterns of college-going. Person and Rosenbaum (2006) describe this as
“chain enrollment,” by which Latino students select their own higher educational pathway based
on where other community members have attended school. “Chain enrollment” is much more
common among students with strong social ties to their communities, whereas students who
lacked social capital within their community are more likely to seek out college information from
43

diverse, external sources on their own (Person & Rosenbaum, 2006). Thus, among those with
strong community ties, previous patterns of participation in higher education within the school
and community contexts serve to constrain Latino students’ college decision-making, thereby
reproducing educational inequity, including high concentrations of Latinos’ in the community
college sector.
Higher education institutional context. Researchers have also looked toward the
characteristics of community colleges and their environments in an effort to understand the
relationship between higher education institutional contextual factors and high rates of
community college attendance among Latino students. These factors, which I discuss below,
include location (Admon, 2006; Olivas, 2005), costs (Paulsen & St. John, 2002; Perna, 2004; St.
John, 2001; St. John, Paulsen, & Carter, 2005), marketing (Person & Rosenbaum, 2006) and
program flexibility (Leigh & Gill, 2007).
Several researchers have found a relationship between students’ college decision-making
and institutional proximity to students’ home communities. Among Latino students, living at
home, or attending college close to home are important factors when selecting a postsecondary
institutional pathway (Grodsky, 2002, Person & Rosenbaum, 2006; Zarate & Pachon, 2006). This
desire to remain in close proximity to home can be connected to Latinos’ high levels of
community college enrollment due to the locations of these institutions. Community colleges
have a wide geographic distribution, and some claim that they were intended to bring educational
opportunity to the communities that they serve (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). In this sense, familiarity
might be responsible in part for the heavy concentration of Latinos in community colleges. It is
important to take a critical look at the intersection of place and college opportunity. As Olivas
(2005) explains, “geography affects opportunity” (p. 182) and the relative ease of community
college access juxtaposed with the physical and figurative distance of four-year institutions
44

should not be viewed as benign coincidence. Many scholars (Admon, 2006; Brint & Karabel,
1989; Person & Rosenbaum, 2006) have cautioned us that the convenience of community
colleges has acted to constrain college choice among low-income students, Latinos and other
underrepresented minorities, thereby furthering inequity and the accumulation of disadvantage.
In addition to their location, there are other characteristics of community colleges that
may make them particularly attractive to Latino students. These include program flexibility and
breadth of offerings, both of which are often marketed by community colleges to encourage
student enrollment (Leigh & Gill, 2007). In terms of program flexibility, community colleges
allow for part-time attendance by offering courses that will fit an employed person’s schedule.
Further, it is commonplace for students to move from community college to community college
from one semester to the next, or even within the same semester (Adelman, 2005). The ease of
the community college admissions process undoubtedly facilitates this type of lateral transfer, and
allows students to go to the institution that offers the courses they need.
Community colleges also have the unique ability to respond to business and “consumer”
demands in terms of academic and vocational program offerings (Cohen & Brawer, 2003;
Dougherty, 1994; Leigh & Gill, 2007). Thus, as a particular occupational or academic area
becomes more desirable, community colleges can react quickly to offer related coursework, and
even certificates and degree programs (Dougherty, 1994; Leigh & Gill, 2007). This ability to
offer in-demand programs may attract Latino students who are looking to get immediate labor
market returns to postsecondary education and the resulting upward economic mobility (Kane &
Rouse, 1995).
Economic and higher education policy context. The final layer in Perna’s (2006a) model
of college decision-making pertains to those factors in the social, economic, and higher education
policy context. In the specific case of Latinos enrolling in community colleges in high
45

proportions, there are a variety of economic factors and higher education policies that are related
to this phenomenon. Though currently, there are a record number of bachelor’s degree holders in
the U.S. (NCES, 2007), there remains a niche/demand in the American labor market for associate
degree earners (Kane & Rouse, 1995; Leigh & Gill, 2007). This is evidenced by the fact that
associate degree holders see labor market returns that place them at an advantage over individuals
with just a high school diploma or equivalent (Kane & Rouse, 1995). This characteristic of the
economic context might encourage Latinos to attend community college as these institutions can
facilitate advances in the labor market on shorter time scales than it would take to earn a
bachelor’s degree. For low-income Latino students, the prospect of near-term economic benefits
resulting from community college attendance could be enough to lure them into the public 2-year
higher education sector.
State-level higher education policy also plays a large part in contributing to the large
concentration of Latinos in the community college sector. Few open access public four-year
institutions exist, which reflects many states’ decision to make the community college a heavily
traversed pathway into higher education. Some states, many of which have large Latino
populations, have provided a structure to smooth this pathway through policy. California, Florida,
and New York, three states in which 45% of U.S. Latinos reside (U.S Census Bureau, 2007), have
legitimated the community college as an entry point to the bachelor’s degree through their highly
structured and articulated public postsecondary education systems (Cohen & Brawer, 2003;
Wellman, 2002). These states’ purport to offer students a seamless route from the community
college to four-year institutions via articulation agreements, and in some cases, guaranteed
admission to public four-year institutions after transferring. For example, California’s 1960
Master Plan for Higher Education stipulates that the University of California (UC) and California
State University (CSU) systems reserve 60% of its statewide undergraduate enrollment capacity
46

for community college transfer students. In Florida, the community college plays a vital role in
the 2+2 higher education system, serving as the entry point to nearly 53% of juniors and seniors
enrolled in the state’s universities (Florida Department of Education, 2005). Students who earn an
associate degree in the Florida community college system are guaranteed admission to the public
four-year university system. The structure and policies of Florida’s higher education system
encourages community college attendance among all students, and Latinos in particular. In New
York, community colleges are designated as campuses in the state’s two major university
systems, the City University of New York (CUNY) and the State University of New York
(SUNY). The inclusion of public two-year institutions in the CUNY and SUNY systems seeks to
facilitate the transfer of community college credits toward a four-year degree (Wellman, 2002). In
these three Latino-rich states, higher education policy acts to encourage community college
attendance through the promise of transfer as indicated by the high concentrations of Latinos
enrolled in California, Florida, and New York community colleges.
Other states with large Latino populations lack longstanding agreements between
community colleges and public four-year colleges and universities. Texas, home to 19% of the
nation’s Latino population, does not have a statewide cooperative agreement between two-year
and four-year institutions. Instead, Texas’ public higher education system is comprised of a
combination of large-scale university systems, regional systems, and independent institutions.
Community colleges were tasked with developing voluntary articulation agreements with each of
these systems and institutions until the state’s higher education coordinating board developed a
statewide transfer curriculum in the late nineties (Wellman, 2002). Further, there is no guaranteed
transfer program mandated by state policy, though some institutions have developed such
agreements on their own. Perhaps as a result from these policies, the rate of community college
47

attendance in Texas is lower than that of California and Florida. However, Latinos remain
disproportionately represented in public two-year institutions (Admon, 2006).
Recent state policy trends with regard to basic skills (i.e. remedial) education also act to
impact community college attendance. In many states, basic skills education is increasingly
relegated to the community college sector. For example, in California students are given one year
to complete basic skills education in the state university system. If a student cannot successfully
complete all basic skills requirements in that time frame, they are disenrolled from the four-year
institution and forced to reverse transfer to a community college (California State University
Office of the Chancellor, 1997). New York has taken further steps, opting to phase out all basic
skills education from public four-year institutions. These policies disproportionately affect
Latinos and other underrepresented students as they more commonly graduate from under-
performing high schools in urban areas. Further, the advent of high school exit examinations
(e.g., California High School Exit Examination [CAHSEE]) has sealed the community college’s
fate as “remediator” of the failings of underperforming secondary schools.
Funneling already disadvantaged students, including Latinos, into the community college
sector can only be justified through the promise of transfer—that is, by providing access to a
bachelor’s degree through the two-year sector. However, low transfer rates (Grubb, 1991) and the
small proportions of Latino community college students who transfer to highly selective
institutions (Dowd, Cheslock, & Melguizo, in press) indicate that state policies that serve to
concentrate Latinos in community colleges hinder access to comprehensive institutions and
severely reduces their chances of enrolling in highly selective universities.
In addition to policies regarding the structure of postsecondary education systems and the
function of the community college, higher education financial aid policy also contributes to the
concentration of Latinos in the community college sector. Rising college tuitions and decreased
48

buying power of federal grants (e.g., Pell Grants) has led to an increase in the amount of debt
students incur to finance college (College Board, 2006, 2007; Dowd, in press; Price, 2004; St.
John, 2003). The policy decision to allow appropriations for federal grant programs to lag behind
the growing number of students enrolled in postsecondary education and increased college costs
has caused loans to become a central part of financial aid packages, particularly among low-
income and minority students attending four-year institutions (Price, 2004; St. John, 2003).
Further, cuts in higher education appropriations at the state-level and decreased availability in
need-based state grant aid (St. John, 2003) has bolstered the reliance on student loans, particularly
in the four-year sector. This financial aid policy environment coupled with the relatively low
tuition at public two-year institutions leads to high Latino enrollment in the community college
sector (Admon, 2006; Nora, 1990; Olivas, 1985; Person & Rosenbaum, 2006; Paulsen & St.
John, 2002). Despite the decreased buying power of the Pell Grant, community college tuition
rates are such that grant aid from federal and state sources can cover them in large part. This is
evidenced by the fact that borrowing among community college students, and Latinos community
college students in particular, are low compared to those in the four-year sector (Santiago &
Cunningham, 2005). In this sense, going to community college in lieu of direct entry to a four-
year institution may be an attractive option for those students who do not wish to borrow, which
is increasingly necessary in the current financial aid policy context.
Factors Related to Latino Student Attendance at Hispanic Serving Institutions
Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs) continue to be understudied in terms of their
attributes that lead to high Latino enrollment and their uniqueness as an institutional type. Unlike
other minority-serving institutions, HSIs inherit their designation based on the level of Latino
student enrollment; beginning in 1992, any not-for-profit, accredited postsecondary institution
whose full-time equivalent enrollment is at least 25% is designated as “Hispanic-serving” and
49

eligible to apply for earmarked funding under Title V of the Higher Education Act (U.S.
Department of Education, 2007). Perhaps due to the newness of this institutional type, only a few
researchers have attempted to understand what factors lead Latinos to enroll in these institutions
in such high concentrations. Certainly this country’s evolving demographics are in part
responsible for the growing number of HSIs; Latino enrollment in college has more than doubled
since 1990 (NCES, 2002). However, it is important to consider what other contextual factors
might account for the fact that HSIs, which comprise just 8% of U.S. postsecondary institutions,
enroll nearly half of all Latinos in college (Stearns & Watanabe, 2002; Santiago, 2006). Further,
the reader should understand that factors in the layers of context in which Latino students are
situated shape their decision to enroll in certain institutions to the point that Latinos exceed 25%
of those institutions’ enrollment, causing those institutions to be designated as HSIs.
Individual characteristics. Although little research has been conducted regarding the
characteristics of Latino students that are associated with attendance at an HSI, some of the
findings regarding Latinos in community colleges may provide insight. For example, Hispanic-
serving colleges and universities tend to be less selective institutions with lower admissions
requirements (Contreras, Malcom, & Bensimon, 2008; Santiago, 2006; Stearns & Watanabe,
2002). Because race/ethnicity and class intersect in a manner that clusters the historically
disadvantaged in underfunded, underperforming primary and secondary schools (Lareau, 2003;
Price, 2004), Latinos, many of whom are first-generation college students, may not be as
academically prepared as middle and upper-class white students (Lareau, 2003; Stanton-Salazar,
2001). The disadvantages accumulated over years of schooling likely prevent these Latino
students from gaining access to highly selective institutions (Fry, 2004; Lareau, 2003), perhaps
making less selective HSIs a more attainable college option.
50

Hispanic-serving institutions are on average, less expensive than other public four-year
institutions. In 2003-04, the average in-state tuition at public four-year HSIs ($1,590) was less
than half of that of all public four-year institutions ($3,400). In this sense, four-year HSIs are
similar to community colleges in terms of affordability. Though empirical studies have not
explored this question, it is possible that Latino students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds
are attracted to HSIs due to lower tuition rates.
Studies (Hurtado, Inkelas, Briggs, & Rhee, 1997; Swail, Cabrera, & Lee, 2004;
Tornatzky et al., 2003) have shown that a high proportion of Latino students and their families
express a strong desire to attend college close to their home communities. Hispanic-serving
institutions are located in areas with large Latino populations; thus, the concentration of Latinos
in HSIs may simply reflect the intersection of geography and educational access (Olivas, 2005).
School and community context. Many of the factors in the school and community
contexts related to Latinos’ high concentration in community colleges might also be applicable to
their attendance at HSIs. For example, the importance of organizational habitus (McDonough,
1997) and chain enrollment (Person & Rosenbaum, 2006) should not be understated when
attempting to describe school and community contextual factors that lead to high concentrations
of Latinos in HSIs. If the social and cultural capital possessed by the high schools and
communities in which Latinos are located is limited to certain institutions, these patterns of
enrollment will repeat, leading to high concentrations of Latinos in those institutions.
Unfortunately, researchers have yet to explore this question, and further inquiry into the school
and community contextual factors that lead to high Latino enrollment at HSIs is needed.
Institutional context. It is difficult to characterize the ways in which the institutional
contexts of HSIs contribute to their large Latino enrollments. Latinos’ share of enrollment at HSIs
range from the minimum 25% to more than 90% (Contreras, Malcom & Bensimon, 2008;
51

Santiago, 2006; Stearns, Watanabe, & Snyder, 2002). Undoubtedly, the institutional
environments in the country’s HSIs vary widely; previous research has demonstrated a range of
incorporation of the Hispanic-serving designation into institutional mission and artifacts
(Contreras, Malcom & Bensimon, 2008). However, there are some commonalities among HSIs.
The first of these is Title V funding.
Title V of the Higher Education Act authorizes the Developing HSI Program, which
seeks to “assist HSIs to expand educational opportunities for, and improve the academic
attainment of Latino students. The Developing HSI Program also enables HSIs to expand and
enhance their academic offerings, program quality, and institutional stability” (Title V, n.d.). The
funding provided by Title V has helped many HSIs to develop programs intended to facilitate
Latino student success. Though the effectiveness of Title V programs has yet to be illustrated on a
large-scale (Contreras, Malcom & Bensimon, 2008), it is possible that special Title V programs
and initiatives encourage Latinos to enroll in HSIs. Previous investigations regarding academic
and student support programs available at HSIs (Kuh et al., 2003; Laden, 1999, 2000)
demonstrate that some of these institutions attempt to be responsive to the needs of Latino
students. It is not clear however, how much of a role these programs play in attracting Hispanic
students to HSIs.
The Hispanic-serving identity of many HSIs is largely invisible (Contreras, Malcom, &
Bensimon, 2008). However, a limited number of HSIs have begun to market themselves as
institutions specializing in providing access for and facilitating the success of Latino students. For
example, California State University Long Beach (CSULB) has begun to distribute t-shirts
imprinted with the mottos “Mi Casa: Mi Universidad, Hispanic Serving Institution” and “Tu
Universidad es tu futuro.” Similarly the University of Texas—Brownsville has strategically
marketed itself as an HSI, including the designation in key institutional materials and documents
52

(Kuh et al., 2003). These limited examples reflect an emerging trend of institutions promoting
themselves as HSIs to encourage additional Latino student enrollment.
Economic and social policy context. Much of the concentration of Latinos in HSIs is
attributable to factors in the economic and social policy context. Educational opportunity is
spatially dictated in large part, particularly among low-income students and students of color
(Olivas, 2005). As a consequence, the residential patterns of Latinos and clustering in certain
geographic areas affect the institutions in which they enroll. Tienda and Niu (2004) found that in
Texas, the large extent of residential and secondary school segregation leads to clustering of
Latinos in particular colleges and universities (e.g. University of Texas-El Paso, University of
Texas-Brownsville, etc.), causing these institutions to become HSIs. Similar studies are needed to
examine the relationship between geography and enrollment in HSIs in other states. However the
patterns of Latino enrollment in HSIs, the locations of these institutions and demographic trends
certainly suggest a strong connection.
Community Colleges and Hispanic Serving Institutions in the Present Study
Regardless of the factors that lead them to enroll in community colleges and HSIs, these
two institutional pathways clearly serve large proportions of Latino students. However, it is
unclear how much of a role HSIs and community college play in educating Latino scientists and
engineers. Do these institutions serve as a pathway to the STEM baccalaureate for Latinos? The
present study addresses this critical question and investigates the ways in which the pathways to
STEM vary by Latino students’ context.
Formulation of College Financing Strategies: Latino Students and the Decision to Borrow
“[Debt] is the new paradigm of college funding” (Williams, 2006, p. 156). This poignant
observation comes neither from a policy expert nor an educational researcher but an English
professor who is also one of the millions of college graduates in debt due to student loans.
53

Williams (2006) goes on to detail the psychological and financial burdens of the student loan debt
that he continues to bear nearly fifteen years after completing his education. “Debt” he writes, “is
not just a check every month but colors the day-to-day experiences of my life” (Williams, 2006,
p. 156). Indeed, the manner in which a student decides to finance college not only affects
students’ educational experiences and outcomes, but also has longstanding consequences.
Student loan debt has almost become a rite of passage for large proportions of college
students. In 2000, nearly half of low- and middle-income undergraduates and 31% of high-
income undergraduates borrowed (Horn, Wei, & Berker, 2002). Current borrowing rates, which
are considerably higher than in the past, are attributable to a number of factors. Many researchers
have documented the governmental and institutional policy changes that have led to increased
borrowing (College Board, 2006, 2007; Long & Riley, 2007; Price, 2004; St. John, 2003). These
changes are largely driven by the current perception of higher education as a private benefit as
well as a public good (Long & Riley, 2007; Price, 2004; St. John, 2003).
Though researchers have established links between the potential and actual burden of
student loan debt and college choice, educational attainment and professional outcomes of
minority and low-income students, uncertainty regarding the causality, direction and magnitude
of these relationships remain. The potential consequences of students’ willingness to borrow and
resulting debt burden underscore the importance of understanding the factors that shape students’
decisions regarding student loans. In this section of my review of the literature, I discuss the
relationships between context and Latino students’ patterns of financial aid and in particular,
student loan participation. Though some researchers (Burdman, 2005; De La Rosa & Hernandez-
Gravelle, 2007; Monaghan, 2001) have characterized Latino students as “debt averse” or sought
to identify “cultural barriers to incurring debt” (ECMC Group Foundation, 2003), the way in
which cumulative disadvantage places Latinos in particularized contexts offers a different means
54

of understanding these students’ borrowing patterns. Before discussing the factors that influence
decisions regarding college financing and borrowing, I now turn to a discussion of Latino college
students’ patterns of financial aid.
Paying for College: Latino Students’ Use of Financial Aid
Latinos demonstrate relatively high levels of financial need compared to other
racial/ethnic groups. In 2003-04, nearly 42% of Latino undergraduates had an expected family
contribution, which is the federal government’s measure of a family’s ability to pay, of $1,000 or
less (Santiago & Cunningham, 2005). Among all undergraduates, 30% had expected family
contributions of $1,000 or less. This statistic reflects the concentration of Latinos in lower cost
institutions and family socioeconomic status. Interestingly, this high level of need does not
necessarily translate into greater usage of financial aid among Latinos. While almost 80% of
Latino undergraduates applied for financial aid in 2003-04 and 63% of these students received
some form of aid, the average award was lower than that of any other racial/ethnic group
(Santiago & Cunningham, 2005). This may be a reflection of several factors, including Latinos’
tendency to enroll in institutions with lower tuitions (e.g., community colleges and HSIs), the
below average rates at which Latinos receive state and institutional aid, and lower participation
rates of Latinos in loan programs.
Latinos at 2-year institutions. Nearly 43% of Latinos who attended public community
colleges received financial aid of some sort during the 2003-04 academic year; a rate four
percentage points below the average of 47% for all students in public two-year institutions
(Santiago & Cunningham, 2005). The majority of these students’ aid came from the federal
government in the form of Pell grants. Slightly less than 10% of Latinos in public community
colleges received aid from the state, and about 11% received institutional aid. Latinos in
community colleges were much more likely to receive grant aid than financial aid in the form of
55

loans. Only about seven percent of Latinos enrolled in a public two-year institution received
loans. While more Latino community college students received grants than loans, the average
grant award ($2,276) was smaller than the average loan ($3,273). Though the loan participation
rate of Latino community college students was below the average of 12% for all community
college students, Latinos did not borrow at the lowest rate. Both Asian students and Native
Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders borrowed at a lower rate than Latinos (Santiago & Cunningham,
2005).
Latinos at 4-year public institutions. The financial aid usage patterns among Latino
students at public four-year institutions differed from Latino community college students. More
than 75% of all Latino undergraduates at public four-year colleges and universities received
financial aid. This rate is above the average of 68% for all undergraduates at public four-year
institutions. Sixty-two percent of Latinos in public four-year institutions received federal financial
aid, and about two-thirds of these students received Pell grants (Santiago & Cunningham, 2005).
The large proportion of Pell grant recipients among Latino undergraduates at public four-year
institutions reflects the relatively high number of low-income students in this population.
Financial aid in the form of state aid and institutional aid were much more common among
Latinos in public four-year colleges and universities with 28% and 26% receiving state and
institutional aid, respectively. Grants from any source (i.e., federal, state, institution) were more
commonly received by Latinos in four-year public institutions compared to loans. Sixty-two
percent of Latinos enrolled in public colleges and universities received grants, while 41%
received loans. The average grant size was significantly higher than the average loan ($7,103
versus $5,055). Interestingly, while Latinos in four-year public institutions borrowed at a rate
lower than the average of 45%, Asian and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders received loans at a
much lower rate than Latinos (33 and 39% respectively) (Santiago & Cunningham, 2005).
56

Latinos at 4-year Private institutions. A larger proportion of Latino students at private,
not-for-profit four-year institutions received financial aid compared to those in community
colleges and public four-year institutions. Eighty-six percent of Latinos enrolled in private
colleges and universities received financial aid, with nearly 85% of these students receiving
federal aid. Half of Latinos attending four-year private institutions received Pell grants in 2003-
04. As one might expect due to their higher tuition rates, private colleges and universities
awarded institutional aid to 37% of Latino undergraduates, primarily in the form of grants. About
one quarter of Latinos in private four-year institutions received state aid, mostly as grants. Fifty
percent of Latinos in private colleges and universities used student loans to pay for college, and
the average loan size was $6,251. Latinos enrolled in private four-year institutions borrowed at a
rate below the average of 56%, however, they borrowed more commonly than Asians, 49% of
whom received loans (Santiago & Cunningham, 2005). Figure 2.3 provides a summary of the
financial aid usage patterns among Latinos college students by institutional sector.
Summary of differences in financial aid by institutional sector. Latinos enrolled in private
four-year institutions received financial aid more commonly than Latinos in public four-year
institutions or community colleges. Latinos in private four-year institutions were more likely to
receive Pell grants, federal subsidized loans, private loans and institutional aid than those in
public four-year institutions and community colleges. Latinos in community colleges borrowed at
extremely low rates and less than half received financial aid from any source. The difference in
the participation rates of Latino students is likely due to variations in costs of attendance by
institutional types.
57

Figure 2.3. Financial Aid Usage of Latino Undergraduate Students by Institutional Sector

Variations in Loan Program Participation among Latinos by National Origin. Among
Latino undergraduates, there were considerable differences in loan program participation rates by
national origin and institutional sector. On average, Latinos of Cuban origin borrowed more
commonly than those of Mexican or Chicano descent and Puerto Rican descent. Nearly 35% of
Latinos of Cuban origin borrowed compared to 29% of Latinos of Mexican/Chicano descent and
31% of those of Puerto Rican origin. However, this pattern does not hold for all institutional
sectors. Among Latinos enrolled in community college, those of Cuban origin borrowed at a
lower rate than students of Mexican/Chicano descent or Puerto Rican origin. Five percent of
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Total Aid
Total Grants
Total Loans
Institutional Aid
State Aid
Pell Grants
Federal Subsidized
Loans
Source of Aid
Percent Receiving Aid from Source
All Latinos
Private 4-year
Public 4-year
Public 2-year
Source: 2004 National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey (NPSAS) as cited in Santiago & Cunningham,
2005.
Federal
Unsubsidized Loans
58

Latinos of Cuban origin in community college received loans, while seven percent of Latinos of
Mexican descent and 12% of Latinos of Puerto Rican descent enrolled in community college
received loans. Among Latinos in public four-year institutions, 35% of students of Cuban origin
borrowed, compared to 47% of students of Mexican descent and 25% of students of Puerto Rican
descent. For those Latinos enrolled in private four-year institutions, 65% of students of Cuban
origin borrowed, compared to 66% of students of Mexican descent and 37% of students of Puerto
Rican origin (Santiago & Cunningham, 2005). Figure 2.4 summarizes the loan participation rates
of Latinos by national origin and institutional sector.
Although on average, Latinos of Mexican descent borrow at lower rates than those of
Cuban and Puerto Rican descent, the patterns are very irregular when considering borrowing by
institutional type. The average figures are likely due to the higher concentration of Latinos of
Mexican or Chicano descent in the community college sector rather than any difference in
attitudes toward borrowing. Extremely small percentages of students in community college
receive loans and more than half (54%) of Latinos of Mexican descent enrolled in postsecondary
education attend a community college, compared to 34% of students of Cuban origin.

59

Figure 2.4. Latinos’ Participation Rates in Student Loan Programs by Institutional Sector
and National Origin

Latino Student Attitudes towards Borrowing
As the previous section illustrates, significant proportions of Latino students enrolled in
four-year institutions use student loans to help finance college. Yet, because Latino college
students borrow at lower rates than whites and African Americans there remains a narrative in the
educational research literature (Burdman, 2005; De La Rosa & Hernandez-Gravelle, 2007;
Monaghan, 2001; ECMC Group Foundation, 2003) and mainstream media (Guess, 2007; Vara-
Orta, 2007) that Latinos hold negative attitudes, or an aversion, towards borrowing. According to
those who make this argument, a combination of cultural reasons including distrust of lenders,
economic circumstances such as fear of default, and informational barriers deter Latino students
Source: 2004 National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey (NPSAS) as cited in Santiago & Cunningham, 2005.
Percent of Students who Borrowed
Institutional Sector
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
All sectors Public 2-year Public 4-year Private 4-year
National Origin
Cuban
Mexican
Other Latino
Puerto Rican
60

from using loans to finance their college educations (Burdman, 2005; De La Rosa & Hernandez-
Gravelle, 2007). This is of concern because Latino students may alter their college-going choices
by attending lower cost institutions, working while attending school, or stopping out, in order to
avoid debt.
A number of studies have demonstrated that Latinos do hold somewhat negative
perceptions of student loans (McDonough, 2004; Tomás Rivera Policy Institute, 2004; Zarate &
Pachon, 2006). In a study of California Latino youth, Zarate and Pachon (2006) found that while
the students in their sample placed a high value on a college education, incurring debt and the
inability to work were opportunity costs that, along with monetary costs, did not outweigh the
benefits of college attendance. Additionally, Zarate and Pachon (2006) discovered that
misinformation regarding the costs of attending California public colleges and universities, the
availability of financial aid and the eligibility requirements for receiving such aid were all too
common among Latino youth. Zarate and Pachon’s (2006) study revealed the ways in which the
internal cost-benefit analysis regarding college attendance is a highly subjective process that can
significantly impact college plans.
Many researchers have aimed to understand the factors that influence the attitudes of
Latino college-aged students toward financial aid and have identified a number of psychological,
social, and informational barriers. In a study of 900 students, Trent, Lee, and Owens-Nicholson
(2006) found that nearly half of the Latinos in their sample had extremely low debt tolerances.
These students expressed an unwillingness to borrow to finance college, which the authors
attributed to lower expectations of educational attainment and external attributions regarding
academic achievement. Nora, Barlow, and Crisp (2006) identified the potential stress associated
with loan repayment as an additional psychological barrier to debt tolerance among Latinos and
other students of color. Certainly, fear of default negatively impacts debt tolerance, particularly if
61

students are uncertain about their ability to persist and complete a bachelor’s degree (Burdman,
2005).
An unwillingness to borrow, however, does not necessarily result from some cultural
predisposition shared by Latino students. Latinos have accumulated significant levels of
disadvantage due to historic and ongoing opportunity denial. Cumulative disadvantage places
these individuals within unique layers of context in which they are more likely to witness
economic tenuousness and experience trepidation about the future. Among students in these
circumstances, why would borrowing tens of thousands of dollars seem to be a safe bet? The
connection between cumulative disadvantage, context, and Latino students’ perceptions of debt
necessitates a more critical perspective to the study of the decision-making process with regard to
student loans.
Some researchers bring this critical perspective to the study of borrowing by invoking
sociocultural theory in their attempts to understand the contributing factors to Latinos’
perceptions of debt and borrowing patterns. McDonough and Calderone (2006) present an
alternative framework for understanding the perceptual differences in financial aid among low-
income Latino students and their families. These authors posit that perceptions of financial aid by
low-income students are socially constructed and are informed by their personal needs
assessments and non-rational cost-benefit analyses that include ongoing mental balancing acts of
perceived college costs and familial financial needs. McDonough and Calderone (2006) attribute
the disconnect they observed between college counselors and low-income students and their
families to the relative nature of affordability and cost, a lack of understanding of financial aid
terminology (e.g. grants versus loans), and the parents’ perceptions of loans as “insurmountable
debt” (p. 1714). McDonough and Calderone (2006) demonstrate the inapplicability of traditional
rational choice models to the financial aid decision-making process among low-income students
62

and the ways in which sociocultural factors influence how students and their families make sense
of college costs and loans. Their findings also underscore the relative nature of debt and the
linkages between context and debt tolerance (McDonough & Calderone, 2006). St. John (2003)
similarly cites the importance of the ways in which low-income Latinos make sense of money in
decisions regarding their use of financial aid. Perna (2004, 2006b) elaborates on the often
erroneous perceptions of college costs among low-income students, including Latinos, describing
how these students and their families overestimate the true costs of college. These false
perceptions significantly impact college choices, directing low-income Latino students to lower
cost institutions, particularly community colleges (Admon, 2006; Perna, 2004, 2006b).
Many scholars have cited the importance of providing access to information regarding
financial aid and college costs to low-income students to alter the misconceptions of college costs
and to overcome the negative attitudes towards debt. Tierney and Venegas (2006) highlight the
importance of social networks as a means to gather information regarding financial aid and
college access, while Venegas (2006) points out the potential of the Internet as a means to access
information regarding financial aid. A national survey of college-aged Latinos and their parents
conducted by the Tomás Rivera Policy Institute in concert with the Sallie Mae Fund provides
further assessment of the level of awareness regarding financial aid among this population and the
detrimental effects of a lack of information regarding financial aid on plans to attend college
(Tomás Rivera Policy Institute, 2004). This study further reflects the lack of information
regarding financial aid often endured by Latino college-aged students and their families. More
than half of Latino parents and nearly 43% of the college-aged Latinos in the study could not
name a single source of financial aid. This study also revealed the lack of awareness of loans as a
source of aid: 80% of Latino parents and 74% of college-aged Latinos did not cite loans as a
source of financial aid. The survey also revealed that lack of information about financial aid acts
63

as a barrier to college attendance; more than two-thirds of Latino families indicated that receiving
information about financial aid before leaving high school was extremely important to plans to
attend college, and three quarters of Latino college-aged respondents not enrolled in college
indicated that they would have been more likely to attend if they had received information about
college financing through grants, scholarships and loans.
While the aforementioned studies offer empirical evidence of the perceptions of Latino
college students with respect to financial aid and loans and describe some of the contributing
factors to these perceptions, the link between the attitudes of Latinos towards student loan debt
and college-going behaviors intended to avoid debt are not as well-established (Dowd, in press).
It is certainly true that more than half of Latinos enrolled in postsecondary education attend
community college, where tuitions are considerably lower than four-year institutions and
borrowing to finance college costs is uncommon. However, very little empirical evidence exists
to suggest that Latino students who enroll in community colleges do so to avoid loans. As
explained in the previous section of this literature review, Latinos’ college decision-making
processes are influenced by a number of contextual factors including socioeconomic status,
parental educational attainment, generational status, geographical location, educational
aspirations and expectations, access to information, as well as college costs and in some cases, the
availability of financial aid.
5

Though there may be a relationship between the large portion of Latinos in community
college and debt aversion, a confluence of social-historical, demographic, institutional, and
economic factors are also contributing factors. Borrowing rates, although low among Latinos in
community college, increase markedly for Latinos enrolled in public and private four-year

5
Although Kim (2004) and Arbona & Cabrera (2007) found that on average, Latinos’ college choices were not
influenced by financial aid, this was not true of Latinos who were low-income.
64

institutions. Additionally and quite interestingly, Latinos enrolled in for-profit institutions borrow
at rates greater than students at private not-for-profit colleges and universities (Santiago &
Cunningham, 2005) despite the fact that a large proportion of Latino students who attend
proprietary schools are low-income as evidenced by the proportion of Pell grant recipients
(Santiago & Cunningham, 2005). This seems to suggest that institutional factors in addition to
access to information, and attitudes towards debt influence the actual college financing strategies
used by Latino students (Dowd, in press).
In her extensive review of the literature, Dowd (in press) cautions researchers against
accepting the debt aversion premise, and calls for additional empirical investigation of the
financing strategies used by different types of students. Dowd’s point is underscored by the
irregularity of patterns of borrowing among Latinos by national origin and institutional type. The
present study contributes to the knowledge regarding Latino students and financial aid by
determining the college financing strategies employed by Latino STEM bachelor’s degree
holders, and assessing the differences in financing strategies among Latinos by national origin.
Although previous researchers (Fenske, Porter & DuBrock, 2000) have studied the financial aid
of underrepresented STEM majors, the findings described financial aid patterns at a single, large,
public university and thus, the sample of Latinos was not large enough to disaggregate these
students. Furthermore, the findings are limited in that they are tightly bound to the institutional
context of the focus university. Other researchers (Redd, 2006) investigate the financial aid for
minority students in STEM fields using national datasets, however the findings focus on minority
students in graduate school and do not consider the specific financing strategies of Latino
graduate students in STEM fields. The present work improves upon the current state of
knowledge regarding college financing among Latino STEM majors, further informing the
ongoing discussion regarding Latino student debt aversion.
65

Latinos Choosing and Succeeding in STEM: Factors in the Institutional Environments of
Community Colleges and Hispanic Serving Institutions
The success of Latino students studying science-related fields is attributable to many factors in
the (dis)advantaging contexts framework used in this study. However, much of the research on
the success of Latinos in STEM relies on theories of student success that focus on students’
preparation, involvement (Astin, 1997), academic integration (Tinto, 1993), and engagement
(Kuh et al., 2005). These commonly invoked theories of student persistence and retention frame
success as solely dependent on student characteristics, which are often beyond the control of the
postsecondary institution (Bensimon, 2007).
The problem of depressed participation and success rates of Latinos in the sciences is one
of shared responsibility between the institution and the student. The success of certain programs
and institutions in increasing the degree attainment of Latinos in STEM illustrates that contextual
factors within institutional environments (e.g. institutional climate, faculty members, and
structural support) make significant contributions to student outcomes. Very little research has
focused on characteristics of institutional environments that positively impact the retention and
persistence of Latino STEM majors. In particular, few studies have attempted to understand the
ways in which the institutional contexts of Hispanic Serving Institutions and community colleges,
the two types of institutions responsible for educating the vast majority of Latinos, contribute to
or hinder the success of Latinos in STEM.
In the present study, I investigate how the patterns of achievement of Latino STEM
bachelor’s degree holders vary by institutional pathway. Do certain institutional pathways (e.g.,
HSI versus non-HSI) facilitate the success of Latino students in different STEM fields? What
contextual factors might account for these differences? While factors in the three other layers of
66

context in Perna’s (2006a) conceptual model are indeed important, I am particularly interested in
understanding the role of institutional context in degree outcomes of Latino STEM majors.
In this portion of my review of the literature related to the present study, I discuss those
characteristics of the institutional environments of community colleges and Hispanic-serving
institutions that might facilitate the recruitment and success of Latinos in STEM fields, which
have largely been ignored in the literature. Due to the lack of existing research on the
contributions of Hispanic-serving Institutions, I draw upon the literature regarding the
contribution of minority serving institutions (MSIs) (i.e., Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCUs) and women’s colleges) on the production of minority and female STEM
degree holders. I also discuss how community colleges have acted as an entry point for Latino
STEM majors via targeted programs such as the Puente Project and Mathematics Engineering and
Science Achievement (MESA).
Contributions of Minority Serving Institutions to STEM Degree Attainment
Several studies (NSF, 2005; Pearson & Pearson, 1985; Perna, 2001; Redd, 1998;
Redmond, Clinedinst, & O’Brien, 2000; Solórzano, 1995; Trent & Hill, 1994; Redd, 1998; Wolf-
Wendel, 1998) on the baccalaureate origin institutions of minority and female scientists and
engineers have found that MSIs award a disproportionately high percentage of degrees to African
Americans and women, controlling for institutional size. Historically, HBCUs and women’s
colleges have been top producers of African American and female scientists (Pearson & Pearson,
1985; Trent & Hill, 1994). This is not surprising due to the systematic exclusion of these students
from predominantly white institutions (PWIs); however, the continued importance of these
special mission institutions even after widespread enrollment by minority students at traditionally
white institutions demonstrates that the success of HBCUs and women’s colleges is no
coincidence. Indeed, attendance at HBCUs and women’s colleges leads to higher educational
67

outcomes for African American and female students in all fields, and particularly in science and
engineering.
Graduation rates of African Americans and women are significantly higher at HBCUs
and women’s colleges, respectively (Ledman, Miller & Brown, 1995; NCES, 2006; Smith, Wolf,
& Morrison, 1995). Additionally, HBCUs and women’s colleges award a disproportionately high
share of degrees compared to their enrollments, illustrating their ability to foster success among
their target populations. For example, HBCUs awarded 20% of bachelor’s degrees earned by
African American students in 2003-04, though they enrolled just 12% of all African American
students (NCES, 2005). Women’s colleges awarded 1.6% of bachelor’s degrees earned by
females in 2003-04, though they enrolled just 0.8% of all female students (NCES, 2005).
This trend of over-performance by HBCUs and women’s colleges continues for STEM
fields. In 2000, HBCUs graduated 40% of all African American students who received a
bachelor’s degree in biology, and more than 40% of black students who earned a degree in the
physical sciences (NSF, 2002; Suitts, 2003). Spelman College, a historically black women’s
college, is the top degree-granting institution for black undergraduate women in STEM fields
(NSF, 2005). In fact, Ehrenberg & Rothstein (1993) found that HBCU attendance increases the
chances of earning a bachelor’s degree for African American students, controlling for student
background characteristics such as ability and socioeconomic origin. Female participation rates in
STEM fields are higher at women’s colleges, as evidenced by the fact that they confer a larger
proportion of bachelor’s degrees in traditionally male-dominated fields (mathematics, science,
and engineering) than coeducational, private colleges do (Sebrechts, 2000). Furthermore, the
percentage of majors in economics, math and the life sciences is higher in women’s colleges
today than it is even for men at coeducational colleges (Sebrechts, 2000).
68

With HBCUs and women’s colleges’ high level of success in terms of conferring degrees
to African American and female students in all fields, and STEM fields in particular, it is no
surprise that these institutions also play a large role in educating students who go on to earn
graduate degrees. Although Ehrenberg & Rothstein (1993) concluded that HBCU attendance does
not increase the chances of graduate school enrollment among African Americans, several
subsequent studies demonstrate the importance of MSIs as baccalaureate origin institutions for
African American and women doctorates. Eight of the top ten baccalaureate origin institutions for
black science and engineering doctorates are HBCUs (NSF, 2005), while three women’s colleges
were among the top 50 baccalaureate origin institutions of female science and engineering
doctorates (NSF, 2005). Solórzano (1995) found that 30 of the top 50 baccalaureate institutions of
Black female doctorates in science and engineering were HBCUs, controlling for institutional
size. These figures are particularly telling, considering that HBCUs and women’s colleges
constitute just 3.5%, and 2% of all bachelor degree-granting institutions in the U.S., respectively
(NCES, 2005).
Through an in-depth analysis of the baccalaureate origin institutions of White, African
American, and Latina female doctorates, Wolf-Wendel (1998) concluded that institutional sex
and institutional race were more important than institutional selectivity to the production of
successful graduates. Wolf-Wendel, who defined ‘productivity’ as the number of white female,
African American female, or Latina doctorates per 1,000 students enrolled, found that for each of
these groups, MSIs performed at higher levels than PWIs and co-educational institutions in
graduating future doctorates. The importance of MSIs in terms of serving as a pathway to
graduate study among women and African Americans is certainly connected to Wenglinsky’s
(1996) conclusion that black students at HBCUs have higher educational aspirations and are more
likely to plan to enroll in a graduate program in science and engineering. These findings are
69

further strengthened by Sax, Astin, Korn & Mahoney (1997) who found that 27% of freshmen
attending HBCUs plan to earn a doctoral degree compared to 17% of all freshmen nationwide. In
fact, HBCUs are important producers of African American faculty in science, mathematics and
engineering (Perna, 2001), illustrating that HBCUs serve as vital entry points for future African
American scientists and engineers. Women’s colleges have also been shown to increase
educational aspirations among female students, however, it should be noted that women’s
colleges tend to enroll students of higher socioeconomic status, which may also contribute to the
observed high levels of aspiration (Wolf-Wendel, 1998).
The above studies demonstrate that HBCUs and women’s colleges are more successful at
facilitating degree attainment and fostering high educational aspirations among their target
populations. But what about these institutions make them more “productive” in terms of granting
degrees to historically underrepresented groups than their non-MSI counterparts? Educational
researchers have taken several empirical approaches to addressing this question, including
analyzing these institutions’ student enrollments (Allen, 1986, 1992; Allen, Epps, & Haniff,
1992), campus climates (Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Hurtado & Ponjuan, 2005), mission orientation
(Contreras, Malcom, & Bensimon, 2008), resources (NSF, 1999) and faculty (Kim, 2002), using
theoretical models of minority and female student success to guide their inquiry. I discuss these
studies’ findings regarding the effectiveness of HBCUs and women’s colleges below.
Doing More with Less: Fostering STEM Degree Attainment at HBCUs
Historically black institutions illustrate that institutional factors can outweigh individual
characteristics in the formula for student success. Students who attend HBCUs tend to have lower
levels of academic preparation, lower GPAs and college entrance exam scores (Allen, 1992; Kim,
2002) and come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds (Freeman, Perna, & King, 1999;
Perna, 2001), two factors that previous studies (Astin, 1993) have found to hinder degree
70

attainment. Yet, African American students at HBCUs earn STEM degrees at higher rates than
their counterparts at non-HBCUs and attending an HBCU is positively associated with
persistence and degree attainment (Astin, 1977, 1993). Additionally, HBCUs often have fewer
financial and technological resources and research facilities than other colleges and universities
(Kim, 2002; NSF, 1999; Redmond et al., 2000), offer STEM majors fewer opportunities for
advanced studies (Allen, Epps, & Haniff, 1991), and have fewer faculty members with Ph.D.s
(Kim, 2002), but still manage to be successful in producing African American STEM degree
holders (Harvey & Williams, 1989). These characteristics of HBCUs and the students enrolled at
these institutions demonstrate that HBCUs are able to “do more with less” (Redmond et al., 2000,
p. 21).
The success of HBCUs has been attributed to several factors related to how African
American students experience the campus and classroom environment, and the nature of student
interactions with faculty members who also act as mentors, or mirrors of students’ possible selves
(Markus & Nurius, 1986). A telling empirical finding by several researchers is that African
American students experience less social isolation, dissatisfaction and racism than African
Americans at PWIs (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Perna, 2001; Jones, Castellanos, & Cole,
2002). Additionally, HBCUs provide a social environment that is more caring, nurturing, and
supportive than at non-HBCUs (Blackwell, 1998; Fleming, 1984; Nettles, Thoeny, & Gosman,
1986; Redd, 1998; Wagener & Nettles, 1998). African American students who perceive their
campus environment to be welcoming and validating are more likely to persist to degree
attainment (Arbona & Nora, 2007; Hurtado & Carter, 1996; Rendón, 1994). In fact, the cultural
comfort enjoyed by African American students at HBCUs reduces student perceptions of hostile
environments that can negatively impact academic adjustment, persistence, and classroom
performance (Nora & Cabrera, 1996; Hurtado & Ponjuan, 2005). These theoretical links are
71

borne out in Pascarella and Terenzini’s (1991) finding that persistence and attainment rates are
higher among African American students at HBCUs compared to their counterparts at PWIs.
Scholars who attribute student success to in- and out-of-class engagement (Kuh &
associates, 2005) have also investigated the differences between levels of engagement among
African American students at HBCUs and PWIs. Several studies (Allen, 1986; Bohr, Pascarella,
Nora & Terenzini, 1995; Cokley, 1999; Watson & Kuh, 1996) find that HBCUs offer more
engaging learning environments for African American students, which may positively impact
student outcomes. Due to the focus on serving African American students, chapters of science
and engineering professional organizations intended for students of color and women (e.g.,
National Society of Black Engineers, Society of Women Engineers) are more commonly found at
HBCUs (Brazziel & Brazziel, 1997), thereby increasing opportunities for community building
and networking among African American STEM majors.
African American STEM majors at HBCUs also benefit from more faculty interaction at
these institutions (Allen, 1992), which is believed to positively impact student persistence and
degree attainment (Astin, 1977, 1993). Student-faculty ratios are lower at HBCUs (Kim, 2002),
which facilitates student-faculty contact. However, it is not just a question of numbers. Black
students at HBCUs benefit from more nurturing student-faculty relations at HBCUs (Allen,
1987), perhaps due to the large percentages of African American faculty at HBCUs compared to
the national average. Particularly for those students majoring in STEM fields, the “role models in
excess” among faculty at HBCUs positively impact the educational aspirations and graduate
school enrollment of African American students (Brazziel & Brazziel, 1997, p. 149).
In sum, educational researchers attribute the success of HBCUs in fostering degree
attainment among African American students, and STEM majors in particular, to their
developmentally powerful and engaging academic environments (Watson & Kuh, 1996),
72

validating, supportive, and non-hostile campus climates (Hurtado & Carter, 1992; Rendón, 1994),
and the frequency and quality of interactions with faculty, who are often African American
themselves (Allen, 1992; Brazziel & Brazziel, 1997). As Allen (1987) explains, “where [African
American] students are able to feel less ‘under siege’, the quality of their educational experiences
and educational outcomes will be vastly improved” (p. 30).
Women’s Colleges: Warming a ‘Chilly Climate’ for Female STEM Majors
Like HBCUs, women’s colleges are characterized by high levels of success in terms of
conferring STEM bachelor’s degrees to women, many of whom go on to earn graduate degrees in
science and engineering. What accounts for the success of these institutions? The effectiveness of
women’s colleges is best understood by considering the barriers typically standing in the way of
women’s participation in STEM fields. Etzkowitz, Neuschatz, Kemelgor, and Uzzi (1994)
describe three types of obstacles to entry into scientific careers for women that arise from (1)
traditional socialization, (2) the structure of the academic system, and (3) discrimination. Females
are socialized to believe that a scientific career is “antithetical” to being feminine and fulfilling
ascribed functions such as childbearing and marriage (Ware & Lee, 1988). As Ware and Lee
(1988) found, female colleges students who placed a higher value on having a family in the future
were less likely to choose science as a major, illustrating that socialization places a high hurdle in
the path of increasing the representation of women among scientists and engineers. Additionally,
Holland and Eisenhart (1990) found that women science majors often abandon science-related
careers due to the perceived dissonance between being a scientist and being a “feminine woman.”
The lack of female role models among science and engineering faculty in academe (Chamberlain,
1988; Chesler & Chesler, 2002; Brainard & Carlin, 1998; Etzkowitz et al., 1994) also serves as a
barrier to women’s participation in STEM fields. Finally, the “chilly,” often discriminatory,
climate that is well documented in science classrooms and research environments (Chesler &
73

Chesler, 2002; Hall & Sandler, 1982), acts to deter women from entering scientific fields and
lowers the persistence of women who initially choose to study science and engineering (Seymour
& Hewitt, 1997). As Whitt et al. (1999) note, perceptions of the chilly climate among female
students have a negative effect on cognitive outcomes.
Much of the success of women’s college in the production of female STEM bachelor’s
degrees is attributable to the ability of these institutions to remove the aforementioned barriers
from their campuses. On women’s college campuses, the barriers constructed by socialization
that can deter women from pursuing STEM fields are challenged by the very nature of the all-
female student body. In a classroom surrounded by all women, the gendered nature of science and
engineering is minimized. In essence, women’s colleges insulate female STEM majors from the
wider social message that science is not ‘woman’s work,’ which contributes to the high levels of
participation in science and engineering at these institutions.
This message is reiterated to female STEM majors at women’s colleges by the presence
of female faculty members in science and engineering fields. On average, women’s colleges have
higher representations of female faculty members and administrators than coeducational
institutions (NCES, 2005), thereby providing more female role models for women STEM majors
and positively influencing academic success. As Tidball (1986) found, the proportion of female
faculty has a significant, positive effect on the number of female students who pursue careers in
science. This is not surprising considering the negative experiences interacting with male faculty
often reported by female STEM majors (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986; Hall &
Sandler, 1982). This gender-biased treatment is further exacerbated by the underrepresentation of
female faculty or senior administrators in STEM fields (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997).
Women’s colleges also remove barriers placed on the path to STEM by ‘chilly’
classroom climates and discriminatory practices. As many scholars have noted (Chamberlain,
74

1988; Holland & Eisenhart, 1992; Wolf-Wendel, 1998), women’s colleges, like their HBCU
counterparts, offer more supportive educational environments, in which subtle discrimination
(Chamberlain, 1988) is no longer a factor. The supportive environment of women’s colleges can
eliminate many of the reasons often cited for attrition among female STEM majors, including
“lack of self-confidence, poor advising, and not being accepted in their departments” (Brainard &
Carlin, 1998, p. 374). Furthermore, the “warmed” classroom climates found on women’s college
campuses act to increase in-class participation, foster high educational and career aspirations,
boost self-confidence, and increase help-seeking behaviors among female STEM majors (Hall &
Sandler, 1982).
To summarize, women’s colleges are incredibly successful in terms of increasing degree
attainment in STEM fields among female students. At women’s colleges, the participation rates in
science and engineering are higher than at co-educational institutions, and all-female colleges
produce a disproportionately high number of women who go on to earn a doctorate in science-
related fields. The ability of women’s colleges to facilitate the success of female STEM majors is
attributed to supportive academic environments, the large proportion of female faculty, and
‘warmer,’ less hostile classroom and campus climates. The very fact that these colleges are
intended to serve women and shape their institutional and instructional practices to accomplish
that aim enables their success in producing female scientists and engineers.
Applying Lessons from HBCUs and Women’s Colleges to HSIs
Though a significant amount of research has been done on the contributions of
historically black institutions and women’s colleges in the production of scientists and engineers,
Hispanic-serving institutions have not been the subject of much study. Due to the newness of the
Hispanic-serving designation (Contreras, Malcom, & Bensimon, 2008; Laden, 2000, 2004) and
the fluid nature of the demographically based label (Contreras, Malcom & Bensimon, 2008),
75

reliable statistics on the share of Latino STEM bachelor’s degrees conferred by these institutions
are not widely available. Although the National Science Foundation (2005) has published data of
the top baccalaureate origin institutions for Latino doctorates in science and engineering, these
lists are compiled without considering Latino STEM degree holders schooled in Puerto Rico and
those educated in the U.S. separately. This is problematic due to the differences in the cultural,
social and economic contexts of Latinos in the U.S. and those in Puerto Rico. As such, the role of
‘mainland-based’ HSIs in conferring STEM degrees to Latinos remains unclear. In this study, I
focus on the contributions of mainland-based HSIs in the production of Latino STEM bachelor’s
degree holders in order to determine whether these institutions are comparable to HBCUs and
women’s colleges in terms of acting as a pathway to STEM for their target populations.
This study provides an empirical basis for the comparisons of HSIs to HBCUs and
women’s colleges. Although Hispanic-serving institutions are often associated with other MSIs,
any comparison between HSIs and HBCUs and women’s colleges ought to be made with caution
due to the differing origins of these institutional types (Contreras, Malcom, & Bensimon, 2008;
MacDonald, Botti, & Clark, 2007). Historically Black postsecondary institutions and women’s
colleges were founded with the express mission of providing access to and fostering the success
of their target populations (Brown & Davis, 2001). HSIs, on the other hand, earn their designation
due to demographic factors
6
, rather than an institutional commitment to serving Latino students.
In fact, many Hispanic serving institutions ‘closet’ their designations, omitting this from
institutional mission statements and failing to produce equitable outcomes for Latinos, the very
students they purport to serve according to the ‘HSI’ label (Contreras, Malcom, & Bensimon,

6
Three institutions were created prior to 1992 for the specific purposes of serving the educational needs of Latino
students: Boricua College, an independent liberal arts college targeted towards Puerto Ricans in New York City; The
National Hispanic University in San Jose, California, an independent four-year BA-granting institution; and Eugenio
Maria de Hostos Community College, a two-year college in the South Bronx that is part of the City College of New
York.
76

2008). In addition, although Latinos are represented among faculty in some HSIs at rates higher
than the national average, a large proportion of these faculty members are foreign-born, and do
not teach in STEM disciplines (NSF, 2005). Furthermore, the wide-ranging variability in Latinos’
share of student enrollment at four-year HSIs (i.e., from 25 to more than 90%) prevents any direct
comparisons of their campus climates to the supportive campus environments at HBCUs and
women’s colleges. It remains unclear whether HSIs play a comparable role to their HBCU and
women’s college counterparts in terms of fostering Latino student success in STEM fields. The
current study addresses this gap in the literature by analyzing a nationally representative sample
of Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders and degree-granting institutions.
Enclaves of Success: The Contribution of Community College Programs to the Transfer of Latino
STEM Majors
Although community colleges are not designated formally as minority serving, they are
de facto MSIs due to their high levels of minority enrollment. Community colleges are intended
to provide access to higher education for those individuals who cannot or do not attend four-year
institutions. While traditionally viewed as a vehicle for further educational opportunity by serving
as an alternate, albeit longer, path to the baccalaureate degree, the community college sector is
not fulfilling this promise (Chapa & Schink, 2006; Dougherty & Kienzl, 2006; Flores, Horn, &
Crisp, 2006). Though there is emerging evidence that community college attendance does not
disadvantage Latino students who successfully transfer to four-year institutions in terms of degree
attainment (Melguizo, in press), transfer rates among those Latino students who aspire to earn a
bachelor’s degree remain low (Adelman, 2005; Grubb, 1991). This suggests that this path to the
baccalaureate through the community college is rife with obstacles.
In many two-year institutions, targeted programs such as Mathematics, Engineering, and
Science Achievement (MESA) and Puente aim to serve Latino students where the community
77

college falls short. Both MESA and Puente seek to facilitate the achievement of educationally
disadvantaged students and increase their college participation and degree attainment by offering
pre-college, community college and university programs (MESA Community College Program
[MCCP], n.d.; Puente Project, n.d). The MESA Community College Program specifically targets
those disadvantaged community college students interested in majoring in STEM fields by
providing academic excellence workshops, career advising, college survival skills courses, and
assistance through the transfer process (MCCP, n.d.). Though Puente is not limited to STEM
majors, its aims are similar to the MESA program. Puente incorporates teaching, counseling, and
mentoring to increase transfer and degree attainment among low-income and minority students in
California community colleges.
Although very few empirically sound large-scale evaluations of these programs have
been done (Gándara & Bial, 2001; Swail, 2000; Tierney, 2002), many institution-specific tales of
success are present in the literature (Kane, Beals, Valeau, & Johnson, 2004; Somerton et al.,
1994). While these evaluations may be internally biased, they are often accompanied by data
showing above average transfer rates for program participants (Haro, 2004; Kane et al., 2004;
Malcom, 2006b, UCLA, 2004). Some researchers (Cooper, 2002; Gándara, 2002; Laden, 1999;
Rendón, 2002) have attempted to understand why these programs might be effective in
facilitating success for Latino students by examining practices as well as student experiences and
making connections to existing theoretical frameworks regarding Latino student success. These
studies aim to understand how MESA and Puente create enclaves of success within the same
institutional environments that typically depress bachelor’s degree attainment and transfer rates
among Latinos.
While prior research on MESA and Puente is certainly limited in scope and depth, the
few emergent themes illustrate that MESA and Puente are able to create validating environments
78

(Rendón, 2002) in which students receive institutional support (Grubb, Lara, & Valdez, 2002;
Malcom, 2006b) to facilitate their successful transfer to four-year institutions (Cooper, 2002) and
persistence to degree attainment (Rendón, 2002). As Rendón (2002) explains, students “need
progressive and sustained assistance to ensure that they stay enrolled and graduate from college”
(p. 642). MESA and Puente provide this assistance to educationally disadvantaged students by
“promot[ing] involvement…[and]…affirm[ing] students as knowers and valuable members of the
college learning community” (p. 645). The active offers of academic assistance, expectations of
transfer communicated to students by counselors, and the opportunities to create social networks
with peers and mentors common to both Puente (Cooper, 2002; Gándara, 2002; González &
Moll, 2002; Grubb, Lara, & Valdez, 2002; Rendón, 2002) and MESA (Haro, 2004; Somerton et
al., 1994) are just a few examples of the practices thought to contribute to the effectiveness of
these programs.
In a sense, these programs share some characteristics with the nurturing environments of
HBCUs and women’s colleges that lead to success for their target populations. However, unlike
HBCUs and women’s colleges, these environments have not been “institutionalized” and are
limited to the confines of the programs. While the success of MESA and Puente in increasing the
retention and persistence of minorities in STEM illustrates that institutional actions can make a
difference, there remains a lack of knowledge regarding the ways in which the environments of
community colleges external to these enclaves of success impact Latino STEM majors. Beyond
MESA, Puente and other targeted programs, are community colleges acting as springboards to
further educational attainment for Latino STEM majors? Unfortunately, existing literature
provides few answers to this question.
Among Latino STEM majors, the role that HSIs and community colleges play in terms of
acting as a pathway to the bachelor’s degree remains unclear. Do they over-perform in a manner
79

similar to HBCUs and women’s colleges, or does the “accidental” way in which HSIs and
community colleges have become Latino-serving mean that these institutions do not yet display
the characteristics that allow HBCUs and women’s colleges to foster success among STEM
majors in their target populations such as a Latino-friendly campus climate, a supportive
academic environment and a large pool of Latino faculty who act as mentors? This study begins
to address this question by describing the specific pathways used by Latino STEM bachelor’s
degree holders and exploring how the patterns of achievement among these students vary by
institutional pathway.
The Decision to Attend Graduate School: Understanding the Effects of Indebtedness
The final decision-making process addressed in this study concerns graduate school attendance.
As with the selection of an institutional pathway, choices regarding borrowing to finance college,
and the decision to major in a STEM field, factors from each layer in the ‘(dis)advantaging
context’ framework (Figure 2.2) shape the decision to attend graduate school. Previous research
has identified numerous individual characteristics, as well as factors in institutional, social,
economic and higher education policy contexts that are associated with the decision to pursue
graduate study. For example, class, race/ethnicity (Price, 2004), field of study (Bedard &
Herman, 2005), institutional selectivity (Price, 2004), and labor market conditions (Bedard &
Herman, 2005; Titus, 2007) have all been illustrated to be determinants of graduate school
attendance. However, the relationship between debt accumulated through student loans and
graduate school enrollment remains unclear.
Characterizing the effects of indebtedness on graduate school enrollment is especially
important given the rapid increase in debt accrued by college students, particularly among low-
income and students of color (Price, 2004). Rising tuitions, the decline in the purchasing power of
the Pell Grant, and slow growth in the appropriations for state and federal grant aid (College
80

Board, 2006; Dowd, in press; Heller, 2002; Hoxby, 2004; Hu & St. John, 2001) have caused
loans to take center stage in the financial aid system. As a result, borrowing rates among all
college students, particularly those attending private four-year institutions continue to rise, with
greater numbers of students receiving loans from private lenders in addition to subsidized and
unsubsidized loans via the federal government. Further, enrollment in postbaccalaureate study is
central to increasing the representation of Latinos at STEM educational milestones beyond
bachelor’s degree attainment (i.e., STEM doctorates, STEM faculty members). Thus, in the
current study I determine the effects of debt on graduate school enrollment among Latino STEM
bachelor’s degree holders.
Below, I review the educational literature on the effects of debt on student outcomes in
general and graduate school enrollment, in particular. These studies provide a murky picture of
the impact of indebtedness on college outcomes due to mixed findings. I also address the
methodological weaknesses of previous research and describe the ways in which the present
study represents an improvement over traditional estimation techniques.
The Effect of Loans on Undergraduate Student Outcomes
Researchers attempting to estimate the effects of loans on persistence and degree
attainment have used a variety of approaches and data sets at the national, state, and institutional
levels. A review of the literature on the effect of financial aid, and loans in particular, on
persistence and degree attainment reveals that the loans have been found to have positive,
negative, and no significant effects on these educational outcomes.
Several studies conclude that there is a positive relationship between loans and
persistence and between loans and degree attainment (Dowd, 2004; Chen & DesJardins, 2006; Hu
& St. John, 2001; Ishitani & DesJardins, 2002). Hu and St. John (2001) conducted a study of the
effect of various financial aid packages (i.e., grant only, loans only, grants and loans, and other
81

packages) on the persistence of students enrolled in public universities in Indiana compared to
those students who received no aid. By analyzing several years of data between 1990 and 1997,
Hu and St. John hoped to capture the impact of financial aid on persistence in the context of the
increased emphasis on loans for financing postsecondary education. Employing the method of
logistic regression, Hu and St. John found that while financial aid had no significant effect on
persistence in 1990-91, for Latino students in the 1993-94 cohort, loans, if they were paired with
grants in financial aid packages, increased the probability of persistence compared to non-aid
students. Interestingly, by 1996-97, each type of financial aid packages had a significant, positive
effect on the persistence of Latino students compared to non-aid students, including loans. Hu and
St. John’s study highlights the difficulty in assessing the effect of financial aid on persistence, as
the multi-year analysis does not take into account the evolving nature of financial aid packages.
Ishitani and DesJardins (2002) conducted an event history analysis of the effect of
financial aid on persistence using the Beginning Postsecondary Students (BPS) national database
in order to understand how these effects vary throughout a student’s tenure in college. They found
that not only were students who received aid less likely to dropout, the size of the benefit to
persistence provided by financial aid increased in the second and third years of college. While
Ishitani and DesJardins’ study addresses the layer of complexity added to the discussion
regarding the effects of aid on persistence by temporal considerations, limitations of the data used
in the analysis (i.e., all types of financial aid were treated in the aggregate), prevented them from
understanding how loans and grants might differentially impact this outcome.
Dowd (2004) improved on this limitation in Ishitani and Desjardins’ (2002) study by
including separate predictor variables for federal loans, grants (federal, state, and institutional
need-based and non-need based grants), and work study. By considering different types of
financial aid separately, Dowd (2004) was able to estimate the effects of loans on persistence
82

using the method of logistic regression. Loans were found to have a positive effect on persistence
between the first and second years of college, but no significant effect on bachelor’s degree
attainment (Dowd, 2004). Chen and DesJardins (2006) drew similar conclusions in their study of
the effects of various types of aid on the persistence of students from low, middle, and high-
income families. Loans were found to be negatively associated with student dropout (i.e.,
positively associated with persistence) for students in the BPS sample. Furthermore, Chen and
DesJardins (2006) found these effects to be consistent across students in the three family income
groups.
In contrast, several other researchers (Braunstein et al., 2000; DesJardins et al., 2002;
Titus, 2000 as cited in Dowd, in press; Stampen & Cabrera, 1988) have claimed that financial aid
has no significant effect on persistence. Through their logistic regression analysis of students at
Iona College, Braunstein, McGrath, and Pescatrice (2000) found that financial aid had no
significant direct effects on the first-year to second-year persistence of freshmen at the institution,
but the individual effect of loans was not considered. DesJardins, Kim and Rzonca’s (2002)
findings supported the work of Braunstein et al. (2000), claiming that financial need had no
significant effect on the odds of dropping out before completion of the first-year of college for
students at the University of Iowa. However, like Braunstein et al. (2000), DesJardins et al.
(2002) were not able to analyze the effects of loans on persistence separately, and did not
consider the interaction of race and financial aid on persistence. Additionally, Braunstein et al.
(2000) and DesJardins et al. (2002) consider the effects of aid on student persistence at one
postsecondary institution, rather than focusing on a larger data universe such as the state or the
nation.
Titus (2000, as cited in Dowd, in press) estimated the effects of loans on college
persistence at the state-level by analyzing the data from the University of Maryland system and
83

found that there was no significant relationship between the receipt of loans and persistence to the
second year of college. An earlier study by Stampen and Cabrera (1988) also considered the
effect of loans on persistence using statewide data from the University of Wisconsin system.
These authors found that loans were insignificant to persistence; however, the fact that borrowers
in their study tended to be from high-income families introduces a significant source of self-
selection bias.
Still other researchers find that loans have negative effects on college student persistence
and degree attainment. In their study of the effect of loans on term-to-term persistence, St. John,
Andrieu, Oescher, and Starkey (1994) found that students who received loans were less likely to
return after the first-term. St. John and Starkey (1995) also found that financial aid in the form of
loans was negatively associated with persistence, particularly among low-income students.
Paulsen and St. John’s (2002) logistic regression analysis of the effects of financial aid on
persistence by social class revealed that loans negatively affected persistence, particularly for
low-income students. In an effort to do a more sophisticated analysis, DesJardins, Ahlburg, and
McCall (2002) conducted an event history analysis to investigate the effects of loans on ‘stopout’
and to determine how the size of these effects vary temporally. The authors find that each $100
dollar increase in loan aid significantly increases the chances of stop out for college students, but
that the size of this effect wanes with time (DesJardins, Ahlburg, & McCall, 2002). Interestingly,
DesJardins, Ahlburg, and McCall (2002) found that loans had no direct effects on degree
attainment, but posited that loans had negative indirect effects on degree attainment because loans
increase the chances of stopout.
The inconsistency of the findings regarding the effect of loans on persistence and degree
attainment is also present in studies focusing specifically on students in community colleges.
Cofer and Somers (2001) found that loan debt increased the persistence of community college
84

students, unless the level of debt was extremely high (greater than $7,000), in which case, the
chances of persisting decreased. On the other hand, Dowd and Coury (2006) found that loans
negatively affect the persistence of community college students, regardless of the level of debt.
However, Dowd and Coury (2006) discovered no significant effect of loans on the degree
attainment of community college students. Adding to the confusion is a prior study by
Hippensteel, St. John and Starkey (1996), which found no significant effect of loans on
persistence.
The studies described above regarding the effect of loans on persistence and degree
attainment of students in four-year colleges and universities and community colleges provide no
definitive answer on whether the debt incurred from student loans has a positive, negative, or no
significant effect on their term-to-term, or year-to-year re-enrollment. The mixed findings are
likely due to differences in sample selection, the varying nature of the financial aid variables from
study to study, and the many methodological limitations of the studies (Dowd, in press; Dowd &
Coury, 2006).
The Effect of Loans on Graduate School Enrollment
Researchers have also attempted to understand the effect of loan aid on post-
baccalaureate outcomes, such as graduate school enrollment directly after earning a bachelor’s
degree. As more emphasis is put on loans to finance undergraduate education, it is important to
consider how student indebtedness impacts student decisions to attend graduate school,
particularly for Latinos in science-related fields as Latinos have been shown to graduate with
higher levels of debt than their White counterparts (Price, 2004) and because graduate school is
often essential for advancement in STEM fields.
As with studies attempting to determine the effect of debt on persistence, those
purporting to estimate the effect of borrowing on graduate school enrollment have mixed results.
85

Some researchers have found that debt has a positive effect on plans to attend graduate school
(Bedard & Herman, 2005; Kim & Eyermann, 2006; Murphy, 1994), while others conclude debt
deters graduate school enrollment (Tsapogas & Cahalan, 1996; Millett, 2003; Wilder & Baydar,
1991), and still others have found no significant relationship (Baum & Saunders, 1998; Millett,
2003; Nettles, 1989; Weiler, 1991, 1994).
Murphy’s (1994) study of the High School and Beyond (HS&B) found that indebtedness
had a small, but positive effect on students’ plans to attend graduate school. Kim and Eyermann
(2006) measure the effects of borrowing on graduate school attendance prior to and after the 1992
Higher Education Act amendments that increased federal loan limits. Using logistic regression
techniques, Kim and Eyermann (2006) found that prior to 1992, loan debt had no statistically
significant effect on plans to attend graduate school. Subsequent to the 1992 changes in the HEA,
Kim and Eyermann (2006) found that for students from low- and high-income groups, borrowing
was not a significant factor in graduate school attendance. However, for middle-income students,
undergraduate loan debt had a slight positive effect (0.4 percentage point increase in probability)
on plans to attend graduate school. Bedard and Herman (2005) also conducted a study regarding
predictors of graduate school attendance among STEM bachelor’s degree holders. Although their
analysis included undergraduate debt as an independent variable, they were primarily interested
in the effects of labor market indicators, such as unemployment rates. Nonetheless, Bedard and
Herman (2005) found that those students with higher undergraduate loan balances were more
likely to enroll in graduate programs, all else being equal.
Other researchers (Tsapogas & Cahalan, 1996; Wilder & Baydar, 1991) have reported
that undergraduate loan debt has a significant negative effect on application to or enrollment in
graduate school. Wilder and Baydar (1991) found that among a sample of students who took the
Graduate Record Examinations (GRE), undergraduate debt had a small negative effect on
86

applying to graduate school, but not on enrollment. Tsapogas and Cahalan’s (1996) analysis of
the 1993 National Survey of Recent College Graduates reveals that loan debt had a significant
negative effect on the chances of enrolling full-time in graduate school for males in the sample,
but the amount of debt had only a small negative effect. Finally, in her logistic regression analysis
of Baccalaureate and Beyond (B&B) data, Millett (2003) found that students with debt greater
than $5,000 had lower odds of applying to graduate school compared to students with no loan
debt. However, among students who applied and were accepted to graduate school, undergraduate
loan debt had no statistically significant influence on enrollment in a graduate program. These
three studies reveal that the relationship between borrowing and graduate school attendance is
complicated, with differential impacts on sub-population of students (e.g., women), and varying
directional effects depending on the how far along a student has progressed in the graduate school
decision making process.
In contrast, other studies (Nettles, 1989; Schapiro, O’Malley, & Litten, 1991; Weiler,
1991, 1994) failed to find a significant relationship between loan debt and graduate school
enrollment. Nettles’ (1989) multiple institution study examined the relationship between entry-
level debt burdens among White, Latino, and African American graduate students. Nettles found
that Latinos and African Americans tended to have higher debt burdens than White students, and
that those students who delayed graduate school entry had lower levels of undergraduate debt.
However, Nettles (1989) found no significant relationship between debt and the decision to enter
graduate school directly after baccalaureate attainment. Similarly, Schapiro, O’Malley, and Litten
(1991) found that among students with high levels of debt ($10,000 or higher in 1982-84, and
$12,500 or higher in 1989), undergraduate loan debt had no influence on plans to enroll in
graduate school in the sciences. Finally, in two studies of the HS&B national dataset, Weiler
(1991, 1994) found that the level of debt from undergraduate borrowing had no statistically
87

significant effect on graduate school attendance. Although these researchers conclude that loans
do not influence graduate school plans, there is evidence that concerns about overborrowing may
enter into students’ decisions to attend graduate school. For example, over 40 % of respondents to
the 1997 National Student Loan Survey (NASLS) who did not attend graduate school stated that
their level of undergraduate debt was “extremely important” or “very important” in their decision
not to attend, while 28 % of these respondents reported that debt burden was not important to
their decision (Baum & Saunders, 1998).
As with the literature regarding the effect of loans on college student persistence, prior
studies regarding the impact of undergraduate debt burden on graduate school enrollment provide
no clear assessment. Again, the discrepancies found amongst the studies of the relationship
between loans and graduate school attendance are likely due to the multiple datasets used, the
differing contexts in which these studies were conducted (e.g., studies conducted prior to the
prevalence of loans may no longer be applicable), the different treatments of debt (absolute
versus relative), and severe methodological limitations. Furthermore, because most of these
studies, with few exceptions, do not provide an estimation of the effect of loans on the graduate
school attendance of Latino students, nor Latino STEM majors, the present study fills in a large
gap in the existing literature by estimating the effects of loans on the graduate school enrollment
of Latino STEM majors using a methodology intended to address the shortcomings of previous
research.
Methodological Limitations of Studies Estimating the Effect of Loans on Educational Outcomes
With few exceptions, the studies that purport to estimate the effect of loans, or
indebtedness, on educational outcomes such as persistence and graduate school enrollment suffer
from a methodological flaw. The vast majority of these studies use single-stage logistic regression
modeling to estimate the effects of the independent variable (i.e., having a loan, or the amount of
88

undergraduate loan debt), on the outcome of interest (e.g., persistence, degree attainment,
graduate school enrollment), while controlling for a number of demographic, student and
institutional characteristics. However, many researchers legitimately argue that this method is not
capable of controlling for self-selection bias or dealing with issues of endogeneity (Heckman,
1979; Millimet, 2001; see also Dowd, in press; Titus, 2007).
Because many factors contribute to a student’s decision to use loans as a means of
financing college including but not limited to expected earnings, educational expectations, and
self-efficacy, participation in a loan program is not a random phenomenon. In other words,
students ‘self-select’ themselves into loan programs. This is a significant problem when trying to
attribute differences in educational outcomes to participation in loan programs or to the amount of
undergraduate debt, because the same student-level characteristics that may cause an individual to
elect to use loans as a financing strategy, may also positively impact educational outcomes.
Further, because these student-level characteristics that lead a student to participate in a
loan program are often unobserved and not included in national datasets, differences in
educational outcomes among respondents in the sample might be falsely attributed to
participation in a loan program, when in reality, the unobserved characteristics (e.g., expectations,
self-efficacy) that cause the differences in loan program participation rates are also responsible
for the variation in educational outcomes (Dowd, in press). While logistic regression analytical
techniques are able to “control” for other relevant variables (e.g., race, gender, age), the single-
stage models often employed in research regarding the effects of loans on educational outcomes
cannot account for self-selection, endogeneity, or selection on unobservables (Titus, 2007). As a
result, the validity of the findings from prior research on the effect of loans on educational
outcomes is severely undermined.
89

How can the non-random nature of participation in loan programs be accounted for so
that self-selection bias no longer poses a methodological issue? The ideal means would be
through experimental studies, in which students are randomly assigned to loan programs. Similar
to medical trials, such a study would create ‘treatment’ and ‘control’ groups from which the effect
of the ‘treatment,’ i.e., indebtedness, could accurately be estimated without problems of self-
selection. Experimental studies are considered the “gold standard,” and are endorsed by the
Institute for Education Science (IES) in the U.S. Department of Education (U.S. Department of
Education, n.d.(a), n.d.(b)). However, while widely used in psychology, medicine, and
increasingly used in K-12 education research, it is neither economically nor ethically practical to
conduct such experimental designs in higher education research with respect to loans. As such,
alternative approaches must be used to overcome problems of self-selection.
Several researchers in higher education propose adopting quasi-experimental techniques
from other disciplines designed to address problems of self-selection in situations where
experimental designs are not possible (Agodini & Dynarski, 2002). Such techniques include
natural experiments in which students with similar background characteristics are awarded very
different aid packages due to financial aid policies at their home institutions. In other words, the
differences in the aid packages between the groups are due to exogenous factors. These two
groups of students can be thought of as a ‘treatment’ group and a ‘control’ group based on the
type of financial aid awarded to them, and researchers can then analyze the differences in a
particular educational outcome of interest to uncover the ‘treatment’ effect on that outcome.
Bettinger (2004) used this technique to estimate the effects of Pell grants on student retention.
Another quasi-experimental approach that has slowly found its way from economics to
higher education research is propensity score matching (Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1983; see also
Becker & Ichino, 2002; Caliendo & Kopeinig, 2005; Ham, Li, & Regan, 2006). Propensity score
90

matching (PSM) uses a counterfactual framework (Titus, 2007) to create ‘treatment’ and ‘control’
groups based on propensity scores, or the conditional probability of being assigned to treatment
based on observed covariates. In essence, PSM reduces covariates to a single composite indicator
(i.e., the propensity score) and ensures the creation of balanced comparison groups. Returning to
the application to research on the effects of loans, using PSM will allow a researcher to calculate
the propensity to borrow based on predictors (e.g., race, gender, SES, parental education, type
and control of baccalaureate origin institution, etc.) using a probit or logit model. Next, cases are
matched on the propensity score to form two groups: the ‘treatment’ group which did participate
in a loan program, and the ‘control’ group which had the same probability of participating in the
loan program as those in the treatment group, but elected not to take the ‘treatment.’ By
comparing the outcomes of matched pairs in the ‘treatment’ and ‘control’ groups, the average
treatment effect (ATE), average treatment effect on the treated (ATT), and average treatment
effect on the untreated (ATU) can be calculated.
Several educational researchers have used this technique to address problems of self-
selection bias. Titus (2007) used propensity score matching techniques to estimate the effects of
bachelor’s and master’s degree attainment on wage earnings. Melguizo, Kienzl and Alfonso
(2007) and Kurlaender and Long (2007) employ PSM to estimate the effects of community
college attendance on baccalaureate degree attainment. Propensity score matching has also been
used to estimate the effects of various K-12 treatments such as English as a Second Language
education (Callahan, Wilkinson, & Muller, 2008) and ability grouping (Wang, 2007).
Quasi-experimental techniques, and propensity score matching in particular, are more
desirable to the typical regression techniques employed by researchers attempting to understand
the effects of loans on educational outcomes due to their ability to address problems of self-
selection bias. When these problems are sufficiently addressed, the causal claims often
91

erroneously drawn from logistic regression modeling are much more sound. However, propensity
score matching is not a cure-all to the methodological limitations of these studies. More times
than not, there will be important “unobservables” that are not accounted for in national datasets,
and thus, cannot be included in the analysis. Returning to the above example, if ‘unobservable’
characteristics are important in establishing an individual’s conditional probability of receiving
‘treatment,’ i.e., participating in a loan program, the propensity score estimates derived from the
probit or logit model may not be accurate. So while the problem of self-selection is addressed via
PSM, the remaining issue of ‘unobservables’ reduces the validity of any causal claims made.
However, researchers can try to minimize this problem by including as many predictor variables
as possible in the model to calculate the propensity scores of the individuals in the sample.
In sum, propensity score matching and natural experiments are two techniques currently
employed by educational researchers to identify the effect of various educational ‘treatments’ on
outcomes. While many in higher education have begun to use these techniques to estimate how
non-random educational treatments impact outcomes such as wages, degree attainment, and
persistence, these techniques have not yet been employed to understand how undergraduate loan
debt impacts graduate school enrollment. Natural experiments offer an interesting approach to
dealing with issues of self-selection, yet one’s ability to use this approach is limited to her ability
to exploit exogenous variation in students’ financial aid packages. This type of variation may not
commonly occur in national datasets. Propensity score matching seems more promising than
natural experiments because it can be conducted on a sample of students in a single national or
institutional survey, provided that sample size is adequate. In many of the studies that employ
PSM, both regression analyses and propensity score matching techniques are used to understand
if PSM would result in more accurate point estimates. In theory, propensity score matching is
advantageous to regression techniques due to the capability of decomposing treatment effects into
92

ATE, ATT, and ATU, and by addressing issues of endogeneity. However, selection on
unobservables remains a potential problem in propensity score matching techniques and steps to
test the robustness of PSM models ought to be undertaken.
Chapter Summary
My study of Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders centers on the effects of key
contextual factors on four decision-making processes: (1) selection of an institutional pathway;
(2) formulation of a college financing strategy and the decision to borrow; (3) the selection of a
STEM field of study; and (4) the decision to enroll in graduate school. As I argue in this chapter,
Latino students are situated in contexts with potentially advantaging and disadvantaging aspects
that shape and constrain educational decisions. The literature discussed in this chapter
underscores the important role that students’ multiple environments play in shaping their patterns
of educational access and outcomes. Similarly, students’ individual characteristics along with the
institutional context, higher education and financial aid policy contexts, and social, political and
economic contexts in which they are situated interact to affect Latino student achievement in
STEM. Using the methods described in the following chapter, the present study critically
examines the relationships between key contextual factors and the patterns of participation and
attainment of Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders.
93

CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

This study explores the problem of the underrepresentation of Latinos among bachelor’s
and graduate degree holders in STEM fields by characterizing the institutional pathways used by
Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders, examining the college financing strategies employed by
these students and determining the effects of indebtedness on graduate school enrollment among
this population. In particular, this study highlights the importance of the community college
sector and Hispanic Serving colleges and universities, the two institutional types with the highest
concentrations of Latinos, in the education of Latino STEM degree holders. The study also
examines the patterns of financial aid and the underlying college financing strategies used by
Latino STEM degree holders, and determines the relationship between student loan debt and
graduate school enrollment. By tackling these three, interrelated questions, I describe the
institutional and financial aid pathways used in by Latinos who have been successful in terms of
earning the STEM B.S. degree.
Much of the previous research on Latino STEM degree holders fails to systematically
explore their institutional and financial aid pathways through the prism of the social and policy
contexts in which these students are situated. Further, while researchers have previously
attempted to determine the relationship between indebtedness and graduate school enrollment,
these studies are flawed for several reasons: (1) they have operationalized debt in an absolute
sense, neglecting the socially constructed, relative nature of debt (McDonough & Calderone,
2004); (2) they have failed to consider the interaction of indebtedness and race/ethnicity; and (3)
they rely solely on regression analyses which are plagued by problems of self-selection.
In light of the limitations of the existing research on the educational progression of Latino
students summarized above and detailed in the previous chapter, I use the methods of propensity
94

score matching, logistic regression, latent class analysis and descriptive statistics to address the
research questions below.
Research Questions
Importance of Community College Transfer and Hispanic Serving Institutions to Latino STEM
Baccalaureates
(1) Nationally, what proportion of Latino STEM baccalaureate recipients earned associate
degrees prior to transfer to the four-year sector?
(2) What are the institutional characteristics of the four-year institutions from which Latino
associate degree earners graduate, according to HSI status, selectivity, type (e.g. liberal
arts or research university), and control (public/private)?
(3) How do these characteristics compare with the institutions attended by Latino STEM
bachelor’s degree holders who did not earn an associate degree?
(4) How does the distribution of students across these institutional characteristics vary by
state and region and by Latino ancestry for Mexican American/Chicano, Puerto Rican,
and Cuban students?
(5) How do demographic characteristics of Latino STEM baccalaureate degree holders who
earn associate degrees differ from non-associate degree earners?
(6) And, what is the distribution of Latino associate degree holders across different STEM
fields of study in comparison to those students who do not earn an associate degree prior
to attending a four-year college?
College Financing Strategies and Effects of Borrowing on Graduate School Enrollment
(1) How does the use of various forms of college financial aid and financing strategies such
as scholarships, loans (institutional and familial), college work study, earnings, and
95

employer support vary by institutional pathway, national origin, and other demographic
characteristics among Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders?
(2) What are the effects of debt on graduate school enrollment among Latino STEM
bachelor’s degree holders?

Research Approach
Social science methodological texts characterize quantitative inquiry as that in which an
“objective, value-free” researcher seeks to make “generalizations leading to prediction,
explanation, and understanding” (Creswell, 1994, p. 5). Schrag (1992) emphasizes the desire of
the quantitative researcher to verify existing theories through the construction of models. This
description of quantitative research reflects the positivistic tradition out of which this approach
was born.
In recent years, educational researchers have articulated a critical approach to quantitative
inquiry (Price, 2004; Stage, 2007). Quantitative criticalists (Stage, 2007) use quantitative methods
to explore or investigate critical questions in the interest of bringing about equity for typically
underserved populations. While the methods employed by traditional quantitative researchers and
critical quantitative researchers do not differ, the motivation, purpose and goals of such research
are distinct. Critical quantitative researchers aim to “use data to represent educational processes
and outcomes on a large scale to reveal inequities and to identify social or institutional
perpetuation of systemic inequities in such processes and outcomes” (Stage, 2007, p. 9). In short,
critical quantitative researchers use statistical methods to understand the educational experiences
of those individuals who may not conform to existing models that were constructed based on the
experiences of the majority.
96

I describe this study as critical quantitative inquiry because of the questions I pose and
the way in which I carry out the analysis. The educational problem at the focus of the current
study, the equitable representation of Latinos in STEM related fields, is an important issue not
only because of its implications for the economic health of the U.S., but also because it pertains to
the ongoing quest for social justice for historically disadvantaged and disenfranchised groups.
Similarly, the specific research questions at the center of this investigation are informed by the
unique, nested contexts in which Latinos are situated. By exploring the contribution of Hispanic
Serving Institutions and community colleges to the production of Latino scientists and engineers,
the college financing strategies employed by these students, and the relationship between
indebtedness and graduate school enrollment, the current study problematizes the tacit
assumptions of what we know about HSIs and community colleges in terms of providing access
to Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders and the borrowing habits of these students.
The methods described in this chapter are applied to examine Latino STEM bachelor’s
degree holders as a unique population. The educational experiences and outcomes of Latinos
ought to be studied and understood in their own right, without constant comparisons to whites as
the benchmark. Furthermore, the intra-group ethnic, socioeconomic and generational diversity of
Latinos in the U.S. precludes treating this group as a monolith when seeking to understand their
patterns of participation in higher education. For these reasons, my analyses focuses on Latinos
distinctly to provide greater understanding of the educational progression of Latino STEM
majors, but also how these experiences might vary based on socioeconomic status, first-
generation status, and national origin.
In sum, I seek to further the current understanding of the educational experiences of
Latino STEM majors through rigorous quantitative analyses of a nationally representative
database. In particular, I identify the institutional pathways most used by Latinos who earn
97

bachelor’s degrees in STEM fields and examine the role of community colleges and Hispanic
Serving Institutions in the production of Latino STEM degree holders. I also characterize the
college financing strategies used by these students and explore the impact of indebtedness on
their graduate school enrollment. My motivation is not to simply confirm existing models or
theories; rather, I aspire to understand how the unique historical, social, cultural and economic
contexts of Latinos in the United States work to shape their educational experiences in the
sciences and related fields.
The remainder of this chapter is organized as follows: I begin by describing the primary
and secondary data sources that I used in the current study, the key variables of interest, and the
selection criteria for the sub-sample. I then turn to a discussion of the steps taken to prepare and
manage the data, including the merging of the primary and secondary data sources. Third, I
explain the descriptive statistical methods I used to address the first set of research questions
regarding the institutional pathways of Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders. Following this
discussion, I describe the method of latent class analysis, which I used to characterize the college
financing strategies employed by the population at the center of this study. I then discuss the
means through which I modeled indebtedness as a policy treatment, conceptualizing debt as a
relative construct, and the ways in which I employed the methods of logistic regression analysis
and propensity score matching to determine the relationship between indebtedness and graduate
school enrollment among Latino STEM B.S. degree holders. I conclude by describing two types
of sensitivity analyses that I conducted to test the robustness of the model.
Data
To address the research questions outlined above, I analyzed the 2003 National Survey of
Recent College Graduates (NSRCG) database enhanced with institutional-level data from the
2002-2003 College Board Annual Survey of Colleges and Universities, the Institute for College
98

Access and Success (TICAS), the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), and
Barron’s Profiles of American Colleges. Incorporating these five data sources allowed me to
consider both individual-level and institutional-level variables in the analyses.
2003 National Survey of Recent College Graduates
The procedures for the analyses involved obtaining restricted data files from the Division
of Science Resources Statistics (SRS) of the National Science Foundation. In an effort to compile
information regarding the education, employment, and demographic characteristics of the
nation’s scientists and engineers, the National Science Foundation (NSF) sponsors three national
surveys of individuals who have earned an undergraduate or graduate degree in science,
engineering or a science-related field. The National Survey of Recent College Graduates
(NSRCG) is administered every two years to a nationally representative sample of individuals
who have either earned a bachelor’s or master’s degree in the two academic years preceding the
survey reference date. The 2003 NSRCG, which is used in these analyses, provides information
on individuals who earned an STEM bachelor’s or master’s degree from a U.S. institution
between July 1, 2000 and June 30, 2002.
Sample design, data collection, and survey response rates. The 2003 NSRCG sample was
identified in two stages: first, a nationally representative sample of 300 institutions was selected,
with the top 85 STEM baccalaureate producers selected with certainty and the remainder selected
from all institutions awarding STEM bachelor’s degrees with probability proportional to size
7
. In
the second stage, a stratified sample of students who earned STEM baccalaureates from these
institutions was selected. The sample of students selected from each institution was stratified by
four domains: (1) the type of degree earned during the survey reference period (i.e., bachelor’s or

7
The composite measure of size is “a linear combination of desirable sampling rates for the domains of interest and the
number of graduates reported for schools in each domain” (Jang & Lin, 2007, p. 1).
99

master’s degree); (2) race/ethnicity; (3) gender; and (4) field of study (Jang & Lin, 2007). A total
of 18,000 graduates were surveyed. A 66 % (non-weighted) response rate yielded 10,831
respondents. This sample, weighted for non-response, represents a national population of STEM
Bachelor of Science (B.S.) degree holders.
NSRCG Variables of interest. Individuals in the 2003 NSRCG sample responded to
survey items regarding their educational experiences and aspirations, employment situation,
work-related experiences, and demographic background. This dataset represents a rich source of
information regarding the characteristics of those individuals who have earned an STEM B.S.
degree in the previous two years. Due to the frequency of survey administration, these data reflect
recent trends in the educational experiences of the nation’s science degree holders and are ideal
for statistical analyses, including that described herein.
Several variables from the 2003 NSRCG dataset are of particular interest for addressing
the research questions in the study and are listed in Table 3.1 below.

100

Table 3.1. 2003 National Survey of Recent College Graduates (NSRCG)
Primary Variables of Interest
Variable Name Description
Student Demographic Variables
Age (AGE) Age during survey reference week

Gender (GENDER)

F=Female; M=Male

Race/ethnicity
(RACETHM)

1=Asian, non-Hispanic ONLY; 2=American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic;
3=Black, non-Hispanic ONLY; 4=Hispanic, any race; 5=White, non-Hispanic ONLY;
6=Non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander ONLY; 7=Multiple Race

Hispanic Origin
(HISPANIC)

Are you Hispanic [or Latino]? N=No; Y=Yes

Hispanic Category
(HISPCAT)

Which of the following describes your Hispanic origin or descent? 1=Mexican,
Mexican American; 2=Puerto Rican; 3=Cuban; 4=Other Hispanic; L=Logical Skip

Mother’s education level
(EDMOM)

What is the highest level of education completed by your Mother [Stepmother or
female guardian]? 1=Less than High School; 2=High School diploma or equivalent;
3=Some college, vocational, or trade school; 4=Bachelors degree (e.g., BS, BA, AB);
5=Masters degree (e.g., MS, MS, MBA); 6=Professional degree (e.g., JD, LLB, MD,
DDS); 7=Doctorate (e.g., PhD, DSc, EdD, etc.); 7=Not applicable

Father’s education level
(EDDAD)

What is the highest level of education completed by your Father [Stepfather or male
guardian]? 1=Less than High School; 2=High School diploma or equivalent; 3=Some
college, vocational, or trade school; 4=Bachelors degree (e.g., BS, BA, AB); 5=Masters
degree (e.g., MS, MS, MBA); 6=Professional degree (e.g., JD, LLB, MD, DDS);
7=Doctorate (e.g., PhD, DSc, EdD, etc.); 7=Not applicable
Educational Variables

Bachelor’s degree-
granting institutional code
(BAINCD)

Institution code (six-digit UnitID) for school awarding first bachelor’s degree

Associate degree holder
(ASDGRI)

Do you have a 2-year associate degree? N=No; Y=Yes

Community college
attendance (COMCOLI)

Have you EVER taken courses at a community college? N=No; Y=Yes

Year of first bachelor’s
degree (BAYR)

Year of first bachelor’s degree
101

Table 3.1, Continued
Variable Name Description
Educational Variables (continued)

Field of major
(NBAMEMG)

Field of major for first bachelor’s group [major group]: 1=Computer and mathematical
sciences; 2=Biological, agricultural and environmental sciences; 3=Physical and related
sciences; 4=Social and related sciences; 5=Engineering; 6=S&E-Related fields; 7=Non
S&E fields

Undergraduate GPA
(UGGPA)

Using a 4-point scale, what was your overall UNDEGRADUATE grade point average
[GPA]? 1=3.75–4.00 [Mostly A]; 2=3.25–3.74 [About half A/half B]; 3=2.75–3.24
[Mostly B]; 4=2.25–2.74 [About half B/half C]; 5=Less than 2.24 [Mostly C]; 6=Have
not taken courses for which grades are assigned

STEM Graduate degree
enrollment (TCDRG1)

Toward what degree are you working? 0=No degree; 1=Bachelor’s; 2=Master’s;
3=Doctorate; 4=Professional; 5=Other; L=Logical Skip

STEM Graduate degree(s)
Obtained (DGRDG)

Highest degree type: 1=Bachelor’s; 2=Master’s; 3=Doctorate; 4=Professional
Financial Support/Aid Variables

Earnings (UGFERN)

Financial support for undergraduate degree from earnings: N=No; Y=Yes

Employer Support
(UGFEM)

Financial support for undergraduate degree from employer: N=No; Y=Yes

Grants (UGFGRN)

Financial support for undergraduate degree from tuition waivers, fellowships, grants
and scholarships: N=No; Y=Yes

Loans from Government
and Institutional Sources
(UGFLN)

Financial support for undergraduate degree from Loans from school, banks, and
government: N=No; Y=Yes

Loans from Parent, other
family (UGFPLN)

Financial support for undergraduate degree from Loans from parents or other relatives:
N=No; Y=Yes

Assistantship/Work Study
(UGFAST)

Financial support for undergraduate degree from assistantships or work study

Other Source (UGFOT)

Financial support for undergraduate degree from other source: N=No; Y=Yes

Amount Borrowed to
finance undergraduate
degree (UGLOANR)

TOTAL amount you have BORROWED to finance undergraduate degree: 1=Did not
earn a degree at this level; 2=None; 3=$1–5,000; 4=$5,001–10,000; 5=$10,001–15,000;
6=$15,001–20,000; 7=$20,001–25,000; 8=$25,001–30,000; 9=$30,001–35,000;
10=$35,001 or more

Source: NSF 2003 National Survey of Recent College Graduates (NSRCG).
102

Key variables derived from the NSRCG. The key dependent, or outcome, variable for the
logistic regression and PSM analyses is graduate school enrollment in STEM fields, which was
defined as studying full- or part-time towards a STEM graduate degree or having earned a
master’s degree at the time of the NSRCG survey. This outcome variable was coded as a
dichotomous variable (0=non-attendance; 1=graduate school enrollment/attendance).
Key educational attributes derived from the NSRCG that served as covariates in the
analyses included holding an associate degree and being of nontraditional student status (i.e.,
being age 25 or older at receipt of first bachelor’s degree). The NSRCG contains two variables,
COMCOLI and ASDRGI, which were used to determine if a respondent earned an associate degree
at a community college. For the purposes of my analyses, I defined community college students
narrowly as those who attended community college and earned an associate degree (i.e.,
COMCOLI=1 and ASDRGI=1). This approach is necessitated by the fact that the variable in the
NSRCG indicating community college attendance (COMCOLI) does not indicate the number of
units earned. The approach used in the current study excludes some students who used the
community college as a pathway to a STEM bachelor’s degree via transfer, as many students do
not earn an associate degree before transferring, however, it also allows for the identification of
community college students and transfers with greater certainty. The results of the present study,
therefore, reflect the population of transfer students who earned associate degrees.
Nontraditional student status was calculated by subtracting the year of birth from the year
of bachelor’s degree conferment. If this figure was greater than or equal to 25, that respondent
was assigned a value of 1 for the newly created variable, NONTRAD.
Secondary Data Sources: Institutional-level Variables
Several institutional characteristics that are important to the financial aid choices of
students and students’ likelihood of graduate school attendance were added to each survey
103

respondent’s record in the 2003 NSRCG, thereby facilitating the consideration of individual and
institutional-level factors related to the use of particular educational pathways, college financing
strategies, and the likelihood of graduate school attendance. I used the UnitID code of the
baccalaureate-granting institution in each individual record as indicated by the variable, BAINCD
in the NSRCG, to match institutional characteristics of interest drawn from four secondary
sources: the 2003 and 2004 College Board Annual Survey of Colleges and Universities, the
Institute for College Access and Success (TICAS) Economic Diversity of Colleges dataset,
Barron’s Profiles of American Colleges, and the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
(IPEDS). I discuss these secondary data sources and the key variables I drew from each below.
College Board Annual Survey of Colleges and Universities. The College Board Annual
Survey of Colleges and Universities is distributed annually to U.S. colleges, universities,
vocational/technical, and graduate schools, in order to compile information related to admissions,
enrollment, financial aid, faculty, institutional resources, and academic programs of study. Key
institutional variables from the College Board data included the mean per-borrower cumulative
indebtedness for the 2001 and 2002 graduating classes, the percentage of students who borrowed,
and the in-state and out-of-state tuition levels for the 2000-01 and 2001-02 academic year.
The Institute for College Access and Success Economic Diversity data set. The Institute
for College Access and Success’ Economic Diversity of Colleges (TICAS) website (TICAS,
2007) provides institutional-level data on student demographic characteristics, socioeconomic
backgrounds, and patterns of student loan use for 3,000 accredited colleges and universities. The
student loan usage variable, ‘mean cumulative per borrower indebtedness,’ for the 2000-01
academic year was used to supplement data in the case of institutions for which the College
Board data was incomplete. The student debt data made publicly available by TICAS were
derived from the Peterson’s Undergraduate Financial Aid and Undergraduate Databases.
104

Barron’s Profiles of American Colleges. Barron’s index of academic competitiveness for
college admission describes the selectivity of U.S. four-year postsecondary institutions.
Academic competitiveness is defined as a composite measure of the median entrance examination
scores (SAT and ACT), high school class rank of entering freshmen, minimum GPA
requirements for admission and the percentage of applicants to the freshmen class admitted.
Barron’s academic competitiveness index has been widely used throughout the higher education
literature as a standard definition of institutional selectivity (e.g., Dowd, Cheslock, & Melguizo,
in press). The scale has ten categories of selectivity: non-competitive; less competitive;
competitive; competitive plus; very competitive; very competitive plus; highly competitive;
highly competitive plus; most competitive; and special
8
.
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. The Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System (IPEDS) is the primary data collection system for the National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES). It is from these data regarding Latino student enrollment that the
federal government makes the determination if a postsecondary institution qualifies as a Hispanic
Serving Institution (HSI). As such, institutions that qualify as HSIs are designated in the IPEDS
data. Because IPEDS serves as the core source of postsecondary institution data, I determined
whether a NSRCG respondent’s bachelor’s degree-granting institution was an HSI at the time of
graduation using IPEDS.
Data Preparation and Management
Merging Institutional and Individual-Level Data
To prepare the data for the analysis, I merged data from the four secondary data sources
to the primary NSRCG database by matching on the six-digit institutional code (UnitID) for each

8
Institutions classified as ‘special’ are those with specialized programs of study whose admission requirements are
generally based on non-academic criteria such as evidence of talent of special interest in the field (Barron’s Educational
Series Inc., 2004).
105

respondent’s baccalaureate granting institution and adding the variables of interest. As stated in
the previous section, these merged variables included institutional attributes (e.g., tuition,
selectivity, Hispanic-Serving status) and financial aid indicators (e.g., mean per borrower
cumulative undergraduate debt among 2001 and 2002 graduates, percent of undergraduates
borrowing).
Sample Selection
Following the merging of institutional data with the NSRCG, cases that fulfilled the
following selection criteria were indicated as selected by setting a newly created dichotomous
variable, SELECTED, to a value of one:
(1) Individual earned their Bachelor’s degree in the United States (i.e., earned B.S. from
an institution within the 50 U.S. states or Washington, DC).
(2) Individual record contained a valid institutional code for the baccalaureate-granting
college or university.
(3) Individual earned a Bachelor’s degree in the years 2000-01 or 2001-02
9
.

Cases that failed to meet the above criteria were assigned a value of zero for the variable
SELECTED. These unselected cases were not included in the analysis; however, they were not
deleted from the merged database so that I could accurately account for design effects due to the
complex sample of the NSRCG. Application of the selection criteria resulted in an analytical
sample size of n=7,700 (71.1% of original cases). Latinos’ proportion of the analytical sample
was 13.9% (n
Latino
=1,065), compared to their 14.5% proportion in the full NSRCG sample.

9
The NSRCG data contains records for individuals who earned a STEM bachelor’s or master’s degree in the years
2000-01 or 2001-02. Those who earned the B.S. before 2000-01 academic year are not considered in this analysis.
Though the elimination of these cases reduced the analytical sample, I took this step to enable a more consistent
interpretation of debt to college costs and financial aid policies at the time of undergraduate study.
106

Missing Data
The cases in the analytical sample were complete with the exception of the variables
indicating the 2001 and 2002 mean per borrower cumulative indebtedness of the baccalaureate-
granting institution. These values were missing at random (MAR), meaning that they were not
randomly distributed across the all observations, but were missing randomly within more than
one sub sample of institutions (Allison, 2001). Due to the MAR condition, imputation of the
missing values was an appropriate step to take.
Missing values for the key variables ‘2001 mean per borrower cumulative undergraduate
debt’ (17% missing) and ‘2002 mean per borrower cumulative undergraduate debt’ (29%
missing) were imputed using random regression imputation (i.e., predictive regression imputation
with the addition of a stochastic component through the residual terms).
The imputation of the variable, 2001 mean debt, involved modeling this continuous
variable as linear function of tuition, institutional selectivity, geographical location of the
institution (i.e., state), and control:

ε β + + + + = ) ( debt cumulative
2001
Control State y Selectivit Tuition
i
(1)

I replaced the missing values with the predicted values plus a randomly selected residual term
from those cases with non-missing values for 2001 mean debt.
The variable 2002 average debt was imputed using the same model, with the addition of
the 2001 average debt as a predictor:

ε β + + + + + = ) debt cumulative ( debt cumulative
2001 2002
Control State y Selectivit Tuition
i
(2)
107

As with the 2001 values, I replaced missing values for 2002 mean debt with the predicted values
plus a randomly selected residual term from those cases with non-missing values for the 2002
mean debt.
In the table below, I provide the summary statistics (i.e., mean, standard deviation,
minimum and maximum values) of key variables in the analysis for the Latino subsample
(n
Latino
=1,065).
108

Table 3.2. Demographic, Educational, B.S. Degree-granting Institutional, and Financial
Support Characteristics of Analytical Sample: Summary Statistics
Variable Mean S.D. Minimum Maximum
Demographic Variables
Age at time of survey 26.97 5.66 21 63
Age at time of B.S. granting 25.18 5.63 19 62
Gender
Female .58 .49 0 1
National Origin
Mexican American .476 .50 0 1
Cuban .064 .24 0 1
Puerto Rican .126 .33 0 1
Other Latina/o .334 .47 0 1
Highest Parental Education Level
Less than high school .159 .36 0 1
High school diploma or equivalent .200 .40 0 1
Some college, vocational, or trade school .265 .44 0 1
Bachelor’s degree .157 .36 0 1
Master’s degree .134 .34 0 1
Professional degree (e.g., JD, LLB, MD, DDS) .048 .21 0 1
Doctorate .035 .19 0 1
Educational Variables
Associate degree holder .220 .41 0 1
Community college attendance .620 .49 0 1
Non-traditional student status .310 .46 0 1
Field of Study
Computer and mathematical science .097 .30 0 1
Biological, agricultural, and environmental science .127 .33 0 1
Physical and related sciences .024 .15 0 1
Social and related sciences .573 .50 0 1
Engineering .100 .30 0 1
S&E-related fields .078 .27 0 1
Non S&E fields .001 .024 0 1
Undergraduate Grade Point Average
3.75–4.00 (Mostly As) .160 .37 0 1
3.25–3.74 (About half As/half Bs) .356 .48 0 1
2.75–3.24 (Mostly Bs) .351 .48 0 1
2.25–2.74 (About half Bs/half Cs) .119 .32 0 1
Less than 2.24 (Mostly Cs) .015 .12 0 1
Did not take courses for grades .0004 .02 0 1
Graduate Degree Enrollment/Attainment
Earned graduate degree or currently enrolled in graduate
school
.330 .47 0 1

109

Table 3.2, Continued
Variable Mean S.D. Minimum Maximum
Baccalaureate-granting Institutional Characteristics
Control
Private .331 .47 0 1
Carnegie Classification
Research University .399 .49 0 1
Doctoral University .138 .34 0 1
Master’s College or University .340 .47 0 1
Liberal Arts Institution .114 .32 0 1
Specialized Institution .009 .10 0 1
Selectivity
Non-competitive .091 .29 0 1
Less Competitive .084 .28 0 1
Competitive .225 .42 0 1
Competitive Plus .044 .21 0 1
Very Competitive .231 .42 0 1
Very Competitive Plus .011 .11 0 1
Highly Competitive .128 .33 0 1
Highly Competitive Plus .019 .14 0 1
Most Competitive .163 .37 0 1
Special .004 .07 0 1
State
California .340 .47 0 1
Florida .097 .30 0 1
Illinois .034 .18 0 1
New York .108 .31 0 1
Texas .118 .32 0 1
Other state .303 .46 0 1
Financial Support/Aid Variables
Sources of Financial Aid
Earnings .600 .49 0 1
Employer support .090 .28 0 1
Grants or scholarships .650 .48 0 1
Loans from Government, Banks & Institutional
Sources
.660 .47 0 1
Loans from Parents or other relatives .070 .26 0 1
Work Study .280 .45 0 1
Other source .020 .13 0 1
Amount Borrowed to Finance Undergraduate
Degree

None .279 .45 0 1
$1–5,000 .094 .29 0 1
$5,001–10,000 .113 .32 0 1
$10,001–15,000 .137 .34 0 1
$15,001–20,000 .137 .34 0 1
$20,001–25,000 .077 .27 0 1
$25,001–30,000 .074 .26 0 1
$30,001–35,000 .027 .16 0 1
$35,001 or more .063 .24 0 1

Source: NSF 2003 National Survey of Recent College Graduates (NSRCG), using final survey weight (WTSURVY)
and Barron’s Profiles of American Colleges (2004).

110

Analyses
I used descriptive statistical methods, latent class analysis, logistic regression analyses
and propensity score matching to address the research questions. In order to ensure that the
enhanced data file is nationally representative of the population of Latino STEM B.S. degree
earners who met the aforementioned selection criteria, I weighted each case by the NSRCG
sample weight and used procedures to account for the complex survey design in the analyses
discussed below.
In keeping with the quantitative criticalist approach described previously, I only included
Latinos who met the selection criteria in my analysis. Rather than introducing race/ethnicity as a
covariate in the analyses, I assumed that the processes explored through my analyses operate
differently for Latinos and I sought to understand those processes for Latinos alone.
Examining the Role of Community Colleges and HSIs in the Production of Latino STEM B.S.
Holders using Descriptive Analysis
Figure 3.1 illustrates the various pathways through which Latino students become STEM
bachelor’s degree holders. To address the first research question of the study, I used descriptive
statistics to document the proportion of Latino students who receive STEM bachelor’s degrees at
HSI and non-HSI four-year colleges, distinguishing between those in the public and private sector
and observing the total share contributed by HSI-intensive states and those states with the largest
community college systems (i.e., California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Texas). To
characterize the role of community colleges in producing STEM bachelor’s degree holders, I also
determined the share of Latino students who earned an associate degree at a community college.
In this aspect of the analysis, I also compared the distribution of associate degree holders in
specific STEM major fields of study in comparison with students who did not earn an associate
degree before attending a four-year college/university. In order to account for the complex survey
111

design of the NSRCG, I used Stata’s survey (SVY) commands to tabulate the results, and
interpreted the reported design-based F statistics to determine the statistical significance of inter-
group differences.

Figure 3.1. Pathways to the STEM Baccalaureate for Latino Students

Determining College Financing Strategies among Latino STEM B.S. Degree Holders Using
Descriptive Statistics and Latent Class Analysis
The second set of research questions in the study pertains to the college financing
strategies of Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders and the differences in college financing
strategy among Latinos by institutional pathway and demographic characteristics. This aspect of
the study involved two types of analyses: (1) descriptive statistical analysis of the typical college
financing strategies of Latinos, with a focus on the proportion of Latino students who borrow
(comparing among Latinos of different national origins and between associate degree holders and
non-associate degree holders); and (2) latent class analysis to characterize the underlying
financing strategies employed by Latino STEM degree holders and the statistical significance of
CC
4-year HSI
CC
4-year
non-HSI
4-year HSI
4-year
non-HSI
Latino Students
Mexican American
Puerto Rican
Cuban
Other

112

differences in the financing strategies used by students who utilize different institutional
pathways (community college/four-year college; HSI /non-HSI to the STEM baccalaureate).
In order to determine the differences in the patterns of financial aid among Latinos, I
tabulated the descriptive statistics using Stata’s survey commands in order to account for the
NSRCG’s complex survey design and interpreted reported design-based F statistics. I carried out
these tabulations to understand how the use of eight forms of financial aid and support varied
along the domains of interest, e.g., institutional pathway, state, and national origin. These eight
forms of financial aid/support include: loans from a school, bank, or government; work study;
scholarships/grants; earnings; employer support; parental/familial support not to be repaid;
parental/familial loan; and any other source. These eight variables were mutually exclusive and
dichotomous, with a response of one indicating that the respondent received college financing
support through the specified mechanism, and zero indicating that no support was received
through the specified mechanism.
While the descriptive statistics enabled me to understand how the use of specific forms of
financial aid among Latinos varied by the domains of interest (e.g., institutional pathway, national
origin), this method alone could not characterize the underlying financing strategies indicated by
the patterns of use of the eight forms of financial support. In order to address this question, I
conducted a latent class analysis to categorize the NSRCG respondents’ patterns of financial aid
usage into different types, or classes, of financing strategies.
Latent class analysis (LCA) is an analytical technique that aims to uncover clusters of
individuals who are similar with respect to a set of characteristics measured by categorical
outcomes (Andersen, 1994; Goodman, 2002; McCutcheon, 2002)
10
. For the purposes of this

10
Latent class analysis (LCA) is similar to cluster analysis; however, LCA is a model-based approach in which it is
assumed that the observed data are generated by a mixture of probability distributions.
113

application, the measured characteristics correspond to the observed, or manifest, responses
indicating the eight forms of financial support, e.g., used loans to finance college/did not use
loans to finance college, received a scholarship or grant to finance college/did not receive a
scholarship or grant to finance college.
My application of latent class analysis is based on the assumption that the observed
financial aid indicator variables are associated because of an underlying, unobserved factor, i.e.,
the financing strategy. For example, an individual whose strategy is to finance college while
avoiding debt will have a different pattern of responses on the eight financial support indicator
variables than someone who seeks out financial aid from any source, including loans. In other
words, the latent financing strategy is the antecedent to the manifest financial aid/support
variables (Goodman, 2002, p. 17). This assumption is illustrated in Figure 3.2 below:

Figure 3.2. College Financing Strategy Precedes Financial Aid Indicator Variables

Loans (Y/N)
Work Study (Y/N)
Scholarship/Grant (Y/N)
Earnings (Y/N)
Parental/Familial Support (Gift) (Y/N)
Parental/Familial Loan (Y/N)
Employer Support (Y/N)
Other Source (Y/N)
COLLEGE
FINANCING
STRATEGY
114

It follows then that the relationship between any two manifest financial support indicator
variables can be accounted for by the latent variable, college financing strategy (McCutcheon,
2002). A consequence of the above assumption is that individuals whose response patterns on the
NSRCG questions regarding financial support resembled one another had a similar underlying
college financing strategy.
In the current study, I used the probabilistic parameterization of the latent class model
which is characterized by the categorical variables: (1) latent financing strategy variable (X); and
(2) the eight manifest financial aid indicator variables (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H), and the
parameters: (1) latent class probabilities; and (2) conditional probabilities (McCutcheon, 2002).
The latent class model is then expressed as a product of the latent class probabilities and
conditional probabilities:

X H
ot
X F
nt
X E
mt
X D
lt
X C
kt
X B
jt
X A
it
X
t
ABCDEFGHX
ijklmnopt
| | | | | | |
π π π π π π π π π = , (3)

where the latent class probability ( π
t
X
) is the probability that a randomly selected observation
from the sample is located in latent class t, and the conditional probabilities (e.g., π
it
A|X
) are the
probabilities that a member of the latent class t will be at a certain level of an observed indicator
variable. For example, as I applied LCA in this study, the latent variable X
t
is a measure of the
college financing strategy where X
1
might correspond to a balanced support strategy and X
2
might
correspond to a loan averse strategy. The first manifest variable (A
i
) indicates whether a
respondent received a loan from a school, bank, or government to finance college (i=1, yes; i=0,
no). The conditional probability π
11
A|X
is the likelihood that a randomly selected respondent who
115

employed a balanced support strategy would report having received a loan from a school, bank,
or government.
As stated above, there are eight, dichotomous financial aid indicator variables, and 256
(2
8
) possible response patterns. Presumably, each possible response pattern observed in the data
could represent a latent class, however the probabilistic parameterization of the latent class model
assumes that measurement error could cause some of the responses observed in the data to be the
result of misclassification. Thus, the observed distribution of responses could be due to a smaller
number of classes. In latent class analysis, the researcher is able to specify the number of latent
classes used to fit the data and the resulting model can be tested to determine if it is an adequate
representation of the observed data.
For each financial aid indicator variable, the conditional probability of using that form of
financial support is reported for each latent class. I graphed these conditional probabilities and
formulated qualitative interpretations for the classes. Additionally, the LCA derived probabilities
of class membership for each respondent in the NSRCG dataset. I assumed that each respondent
was a member of the class for which they had the highest probability of membership.
Subsequent to assigning the respondents the college financing strategy as indicated by
their class membership, I conducted cross tabulations of the college financing strategies by
domains of interest (e.g., institutional pathway, national origin) using Stata’s survey (SVY)
commands and tested for statistically significant inter-group differences.
Estimating the Effect of Indebtedness on Latino STEM B.S. Degree Holders’ Graduate School
Enrollment using Logistic Regression and Propensity Score Matching
In the final research question of the study, I wished to determine the effects of
indebtedness of graduate school enrollment among Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders. I
conducted this analysis using two methods: logistic regression and propensity score matching
116

(PSM). I also compared the results obtained through use of these two different methods of
analysis. I discuss each of these methods below, and describe the rationale for using propensity
score matching. However, before discussing the methods, I explain the strategy I used for
modeling debt as a treatment.
Modeling Debt as a Treatment. In order to understand the way in which borrowing
affects graduate school enrollment I used the methods of logistic regression and propensity score
matching. The key variable of interest involved in modeling debt as a treatment is UGLOANR, or
the cumulative undergraduate debt. UGLOANR is a categorical variable that indicated the amount
borrowed (from any source) to finance the undergraduate degree. Possible responses are
illustrated in the table below.

Table 3.3. Possible Responses for Cumulative Undergraduate Debt
Cumulative Undergraduate Debt
1. Did not earn a degree at this level
2. None
3. $1–$5,000
4. $5,001–$10,000
5. $10,001–$15,000
6. $15,001–$20,000
7. $20,001–$25,000
8. $25,000–$30,000
9. $30,001–$35,000
10. $35,001 or more
Source: 2003 National Survey of Recent College Graduates (NSRCG), National Science Foundation.

My strategy for modeling debt as a treatment involved developing three treatment
categories for debt: high debt, low debt, and no debt. I defined the level of borrowing relative to
a respondent’s peers at the baccalaureate-granting institution due to previous research that
suggests debt is a socially constructed concept and perceptions of indebtedness are influenced by
social location and context (Archer & Hutchings, 2000; McDonough & Calderone, 2006). In
other words, the “dosage” of the treatment (i.e., borrowing), is defined in terms of how it
117

compares to the average cumulative undergraduate debt of the graduating class in the year of
interest (i.e., 2000-01 or 2001-02).
Because the cumulative undergraduate borrowing variable UGLOANR provided in the
NSRCG dataset is categorical and the average cumulative debt from the College Board and
TICAS datasets is a continuous variable, I had to decide how to define the “dosage” of the
treatment. I decided to define the debt treatment level as a continuous variable with the following
formula:

Dose =
⎟
⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜
⎜
⎝
⎛
+ ∗
debt
UGLOANR
debt
UGLOANR
val val max min
2
1
, (4)

where UGLOANR
min val
and UGLOANR
max val
are the minimum and maximum value of the debt
category indicated by the respondent and debt is the average cumulative debt of the graduating
class of the baccalaureate-granting institution in the appropriate year.
An alternative strategy, which I decided against, was to model the effects of the absolute
magnitude of debt. I rejected this strategy because the literature of the effects of loans on
enrollment choices suggests that there is not a linear relationship between these two factors.
Instead, different borrowing strategies are at play at low and high levels of indebtedness. I
acknowledge that decisions about college debt are not exogenous to decisions about institutional
pathways and costs. My modeling approach implies a sequence of decisions regarding the
institutional pathway (attend/not attend 2-year institution; more/less expensive 4-year institution)
and initial financing strategy (borrow/not to borrow), followed by decisions about the amount of
debt to incur each semester.
118

The definition of the treatment “dose” resulted in the following distribution of debt
treatments levels among my sample as shown in Figure 3.3. The figure and the analyses make the
distinction between those who have earned an associate degree and non-associate degree holders
due to the expectation that associate degree earners who spend less time at the four-year
institution borrow less. Thus, passage into the “high debt category” for an associate degree holder
will occur at a lower dosage level compared to non-associate degree holders.

Figure 3.3. Distribution of Relative Debt Dosage Level by Associate Degree

As noted, the characterization of students’ decisions about borrowing is modeled within
their chosen institutional pathway. Based on the distributions above, I defined the high debt
category as shown below, where a dosage of 1.5 corresponds to borrowing an amount equal to
one and a half times the average cumulative per borrower debt at the baccalaureate-granting
Source: Analyses of the NSF 2003 National Survey of Recent College Graduates (NSRCG).
Dosage Level
Dosage Level
Low debt High debt
Associate Degree Holders (n=961)
Cutpoint=1.00
0 2.0
4.0
20
0
40
80
100
60
Low debt High debt
Cutpoint=1.5
Non-Associate Degree Holders (n=6,739)
0
100
200
300
0 2.0
4.0
Frequency
119

institution, and a dosage of 1.0 corresponds to borrowing at an amount equal to the average per
borrower cumulative debt at the baccalaureate-granting institution.

Non-Associate Degree Holders
High Debt Category: Dosage ≥1.5
Low Debt Category: 0 > > > = =
iM ij j i ij j i ij i ij i i
y y y y y y y y p x j y p K K (9)

125

I used Equations 6–9 to generate the propensity scores of participating in a loan program
at a given level (i.e., high debt, low debt), given the individual-specific covariates x ′
i
and the
institutional-level covariates, z ′
i
.
Figure 3.5 illustrates the individual-specific and institutional-level covariates included in
the multinomial probit regression model to calculate the propensity scores.

Figure 3.5. Covariates included in Constrained Multinomial Probit Model of Relative Level
of Indebtedness

For each respondent in the sample, the probabilities of participating in a loan program at
a high and low level were used to create a counterfactual framework, i.e., a ‘treatment’ group and
a ‘control’ group. Members of the treatment group borrowed at either the high or low level, and
members of the control group did not borrow at all.
Predicted Probability
of Borrowing
at a High or Low
Relative Level
Individual-level Variables
• Hispanic Origin Group (i.e., Mexican, Cuban,
Puerto Rican, Other)
• Gender
• Highest Parental Education Level
• Associate Degree Holder
• Non-Traditional Student Status
• Field of Study
• Attended college in-state

Institutional-level Variables
• Geographic location (i.e., state)
• Tuition and fees
• Percent Students who Borrow
• Control (public/private)
• Type (liberal arts, comprehensive, research
university)
• Selectivity

126

I used specialized PSM software (the PSMATCH2 module in Stata) (Leuven & Sianesi,
2003; Sianesi, 2001) to create the ‘treatment’ and ‘control’ groups, check for balance in these two
groups, match cases with similar propensities to borrow (e.g., high-high, and low-low), and
compare the outcome of interest, i.e., graduate school attendance, to estimate the effects of the
treatment on graduate school attendance. Figure 3.6 illustrates the creation of treatment and
control groups and the matching of cases in PSMATCH2 (Leuven & Sianesi, 2003). As depicted
in the figure, cases from the ‘treatment’ and counterfactual ‘control’ group are matched to
estimate the treatment effects.

Figure 3.6. Illustration of Application of Propensity Score Matching Techniques to Estimate
the Effects of Undergraduate Loan Debt on Graduate School Attendance

I obtained the average treatment effect (ATE), average treatment effect on the treated
(ATT), and the average treatment effect on the untreated (ATU) through the use of PSMATCH2
Propensity Scores:
p
0
< p
j
< p
1
Respondents who
participated in a loan
program at high level or
low level
Respondents who did not
participate in a loan
program
Treatment Group Control Group
increasing p
j

Matched Cases
127

in Stata (Leuven & Sianesi, 2003; Sianesi, 2001). The ATT represents the average impact of the
treatment among those who have been exposed to it, and the ATU indicates the expected impact
of treatment among those who have not been treated. The ATE corresponds to the average
treatment effect for the entire population, whether or not a particular individual has been treated.
The formulae for the ATT, ATU, and ATE are given below:
[ ] [ ] [ ] T Y E T Y E T Y Y E ATT
C
i
T
i
C
i
T
i
| | | − = − = (10)

[ ] [ ] [ ] C Y E C Y E C Y Y E ATU
C
i
T
i
C
i
T
i
| | | − = − = (11)

[ ] [ ] ) ( | ) ( | ) ( ) ( C P C Y Y E T P T Y Y E C P ATU T P ATT ATE
C
i
T
i
C
i
T
i
∗ − + ∗ − = ∗ + ∗ = (12)

PSM allows for a variety of matching methods (Becker & Ichino, 2002; Caliendo &
Kopeinig, 2005) and the appropriate method ought to be selected by the researcher based on the
characteristics of the data and her tolerance levels for variance in the estimates versus accurate
matches (Caliendo & Kopeinig, 2005; Ham, Li, & Reagan, 2006). Because the propensity score
derived using the constrained multinomial probit model is a continuous variable, the probability
of observing the same value of the propensity score is zero. The matching methods proposed in
the literature are designed to circumvent this issue by matching treatment and control cases with
propensity scores within a certain interval (i.e., stratification matching), matching treatment cases
with the control case with the closest propensity score (i.e., nearest neighbor matching), matching
each treatment case with a control case whose propensity score falls in a predefined neighborhood
of its propensity score (i.e., radius matching), and matching treatment cases with a weighted
average of all control cases, where the weights are inversely proportional to the absolute value of
the difference between the propensity scores of the treated and controls (i.e., kernel matching)
128

(Becker & Ichino, 2002). For the current study, I chose to use the kernel matching scheme in
order to avoid matching cases with large differences in propensity scores, and to increase the
quality of matches by identifying the best counterfactual (Titus, 2007). Kernel matching is
thought to produce the most precise estimates of the treatment effects (Frölich, 2004).
Once the ATE, ATT, and the ATU were calculated, I compared the results obtained using
PSM with those from the logistic regression analysis in order to evaluate whether PSM represents
an improvement over standard estimation procedures.
Sensitivity Analyses
While propensity score matching is widely preferred over standard regression techniques
(Titus, 2007), PSM is not an infallible method of analysis. There are several pitfalls that can
potentially undermine the validity of PSM results. Two such pitfalls are the quality of the model
used to predict propensity scores, and the issue of unobserved variables that might affect the
propensity score estimates and the outcome of interest. Below, I discuss two types of sensitivity
analysis I conducted to bolster the validity of my findings.
Testing the effects of additional and fewer covariates on the propensity score estimates.
In order to establish the soundness PSM results, I tested the sensitivity of the calculated treatment
effects to the modeled propensity scores. By changing the observed covariates included in the
constrained multinomial probit model used to estimate the propensity scores (i.e., including
additional covariates, and excluding some covariates from the original model), I was able to
determine the change in treatment effects caused by these alterations. Other researchers using
propensity score matching (Titus, personal communication, January 31, 2008) have used this
technique to strengthen the validity of their results.
Testing the robustness of treatment effect estimates against violations of the Conditional
Independence Assumption. While PSM is capable of correcting for self-selection biases, it is
129

possible that unobserved characteristics or “unobservables” could simultaneously impact the
outcome variable of interest (i.e., graduate school enrollment) and the propensity score (i.e.,
predicted probability of participating in a loan program at a given level), constituting a violation
of the Conditional Independence Assumption (Caliendo & Kopeinig, 2005). The presence of such
an unobserved determinant might create a hidden bias against which estimates of the treatment
effects derived from PSM are not robust (Becker & Caliendo, 2007; Rosenbaum, 2002)
undermining the validity of the PSM model.
Though the conditional independence assumption cannot be directly tested (Caliendo &
Kopeinig, 2005; Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1983), it is possible to test the robustness of the treatment
effect estimates against hidden biases introduced by unobserved variables using the bounding
approach first proposed by Rosenbaum (2002). Sensitivity analysis using the bounding approach
tests how strongly ‘unobservables’ could simultaneously influence the propensity to participate in
treatment and the outcome variable without undermining the results of the propensity score
matching analysis. For example, if two individuals had identical observed covariates (e.g.,
national origin, gender, SES), they would have the same probability of receiving treatment (e.g.,
borrowing at a high level), and thus, the same propensity score. However, there could be some
unobserved factor that altered the probability of borrowing at a high level so that the true
propensity scores of the individuals are in fact different. The Stata module, MHBOUNDS
(Becker & Caliendo, 2007), introduces different levels of bias that could be caused by unobserved
variables and tests how large the hidden bias would have to be to render the PSM results
insignificant. I used the MHBOUNDS module to test the robustness of the propensity score
matching treatment effect estimates against unobserved variables.
130

CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS

The findings presented in this chapter relate to Latinos who earned a bachelor’s degree in
STEM fields from a U.S. postsecondary institution in the 2000-01/2001-02 academic years.
Institutional Pathways to STEM Bachelor’s Degrees for Latinos
The first research question addressed in this study pertains to the institutional pathways
traversed by Latino STEM degree holders. In this section, I describe the institutional pathways
traversed by Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders, focusing in particular on the role of the
community college and Hispanic-Serving institutions (HSIs) for these students. Table 4.1
illustrates that nearly 20% of Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders earned an associate degree
from a community college. Slightly less than 20% of Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders
earned that degree from an four-year institution designated as ‘Hispanic-serving.’
In order to gain a better understanding of the institutional pathways Latino STEM degree
holders used to gain access to that degree, four paths of interest have been identified: (1) associate
degree completion at a community college followed by bachelor’s degree completion at a four-
year Hispanic Serving Institution; (2) associate degree completion at a community college
followed by B.S. completion at four-year non-HSI; (3) entrance to a four-year HSI without
earning an associate degree; and (4) entrance to a four-year non-HSI without earning an associate
degree
12
. Observed proportions presented
13
for Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders using
each pathway are illustrated in Table 4.1.

12
Due to the limitations of the NSRCG dataset, I was unable to determine which respondents may have transferred
from a community college to a four-year institution without earning an associate degree. For this reason, the term
“direct entrant” is not used to describe those individuals who did not follow pathways (1) or (2) as defined above.

13
Without controlling for other factors.
131

Table 4.1. Institutional Pathways of Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree Holders

Latinos
Weighted Sample n=61,233
Associate Degree
Earned an AA/AS at CC 19.8%
Did not earn an AA/AS at CC 80.2%
Hispanic Serving Institution
B.S.-granting institution designated as HSI 19.8%
B.S.-granting institution not designated as HSI 80.2%
Institutional Pathway
AA/AS at CC to 4-year HSI 6.4%
AA/AS at CC to 4-year non-HSI 13.5%
4-year HSI 13.5%
4-year non-HSI 66.7%
Source: Analyses of the NSF 2003 National Survey of Recent College Graduates (NSRCG), using final survey weight
(WTSURVY).

Differences in Degree-granting Institutional Characteristics by Pathway for Latino STEM
Degree Holders
The first research question posed in this study also asked what differences, if any, existed
in the characteristics of baccalaureate-granting colleges/universities of Latino STEM B.S.-degree
holders who earned an associate degree and those who did not earn an AA/AS. Table 4.2 shows
that Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders who have earned an associate degree graduate from
publicly controlled four-year institutions in a higher proportion (p<.001) than those Latino STEM
B.S. holders who did not earn an associate degree (83.0% and 62.9%, respectively).
Differences in the Carnegie classification of baccalaureate-granting institution also exist
between those Latino STEM B.S. holders who earned an associate degree and those who did not
(p<.001)
14
. About 25% of Latino associate degree holders earned their STEM baccalaureate from
a Research University compared to almost 44% of Latino STEM B.S. degree holders who did not
earn an associate degree. Slightly over 16% of Latinos who were AA/AS degree holders earned
their bachelor’s degree from a Doctoral University, compared to just over 13% of Latinos who

14
Design-based F statistics are used to determine the statistical significance of differences in proportions in order to
account for the clustered (by undergraduate institution) and stratified (by race/ethnicity, gender, and field of study)
nature of the National Survey of Recent College Graduates (NSRCG) sample design.
132

did not earn an associate degree. A larger proportion of associate degree holders graduated from
institutions classified as Master’s Colleges/Universities (46.5%) compared to the proportion of
non-associate degree holders attending this institutional type (30.9%). Table 4.2 also illustrates
that a lower proportion of associate degree holders attended liberal arts colleges (7.8%) compared
to non-associate degree holders (12.3%).
Table 4.2 also shows that a larger proportion (p<.001) of Latino STEM bachelor’s degree
holders who earned an associate degree graduated from a Hispanic-Serving institution compared
to non-associate degree holders. Thirty-two percent of Latino AA/AS degree holders earned their
bachelor’s degree from an HSI, compared to just below 17% of non-AA/AS degree holders.
The distribution of Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders across the ten categories of
institutional selectivity defined by Barron’s shown in Table 4.2 illustrates that there are
significant differences (p<.001) between associate degree holders and non-associate degree
holders. Though a larger proportion of non-AA/AS degree holders attended institutions
categorized as “non-competitive” (9.7%) than AA/AS degree holders (6.2%), more than half
(58%) of associate degree holders graduated from less-selective institutions (those classified
between ‘non-competitive’ and ‘competitive plus’). This is compared to 41% of non-associate
degree holders who fall into these four, less selective categories. Additionally, Table 4.2 shows
that just under 10% of Latino associate degree holders graduated from institutions in the highest
category of selectivity (“most competitive”), compared to nearly 18% of non-associate degree
holders.

133
Table 4.2. Baccalaureate-granting Institutional Characteristics of Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree Holders by Associate Degree
Institutional Pathway
AA/AS @ CC
No AA/AS @
CC
Total Latino
Weighted Sample n = 12,142 n = 49,092 n = 61,233
**
Control
Uncorrected χ
2
=211.224 df=1 Public 83.0% 62.9% 66.9%
Design-based F(1, 213)=17.093, p<0.001 Private 17.0% 37.1% 33.1%
Carnegie Classification
Uncorrected χ
2
=413.713, df=4 Research University 25.3% 43.5% 39.9%
Design-based F(3.28, 689.83)= 6.932, p<0.001 Doctoral University 16.3% 13.2% 13.8%
Master’s College/University 46.5% 30.9% 34.0%
Liberal Arts College 7.8% 12.3% 11.4%
Specialized Institution 4.1% 0.1% 0.9%
Hispanic-Serving Institution
Uncorrected χ
2
=170.842, df=1 Hispanic Serving Institution 32.1% 16.8% 19.8%
Design-based F(1, 214)= 9.435, p<0.003 Not a Hispanic Serving Institution 68.0% 83.2% 80.2%
Selectivity #/% of institutions
†

Uncorrected χ
2
=516.011 df=9 Non-Competitive (n
inst
=14, 5.2%) 6.2% 9.7% 9.0%
Design-based F(6.42, 1374.51)= 4.662, p<0.001 Less Competitive (n
inst
=26, 9.6% ) 17.1% 6.3% 8.4%
Competitive (n
inst
=82, 30.4%) 29.6% 20.7% 22.5%
Competitive Plus (n
inst
=9, 3.3%) 5.1% 4.3% 4.4%
Very Competitive (n
inst
=67, 24.8%) 25.2% 22.6% 23.1%
Very Competitive Plus (n
inst
=11, 4.1%) 3.4% 0.6% 1.1%
Highly Competitive (n
inst
=26, 9.6%) 2.6% 15.4% 12.8%
Highly Competitive Plus (n
inst
=6, 2.2%) 1.0% 2.1% 1.9%
Most Competitive (n
inst
=27, 10%) 9.8% 17.9% 16.3%
Special (n
inst
=2, 0.8%) <1% 0.5% 0.4%
Notes: Column proportions.
**
May not sum to total due to rounding.
†
The number (n
inst
) of institutions in each selectivity category and the proportion (%) of the total
number of institutions in the NSRCG data universe are reported. Design-based F statistics are presented to account for the complex sample design of the 2003 NSRCG.
Source: Analyses of the NSF 2003 National Survey of Recent College Graduates (NSRCG), using final survey weight (WTSURVY).
134

Differences in Institutional Pathways and Characteristics by State and Region

Table 4.3 illustrates that significant differences exist (p<0.001) in the institutional
pathways followed by Latino STEM B.S. degree holders by geographical region. Of those
Latinos who earned the STEM bachelor’s degree from an institution located in the Northeast, less
than 1% earned an associate degree. Just over 37% of Latinos who were awarded a STEM B.S.
from an institution in the South Atlantic earned an associate degree. Though not as high as the
South Atlantic region, over twenty percent of Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders who
attended an institution in the Mid-Atlantic, West North Central, and Pacific regions earned an
associate degree.
Table 4.3 also shows that significant differences in the proportion of associate degree
holders and non-associate degree holders exist by state. The five states with the largest
community college enrollments in the U.S. (California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Texas)
are included on the table; data for the other 45 U.S. states are reported in the aggregate. Nearly
half of all Latinos who were awarded a STEM bachelor’s degree from an institution located in
Florida earned an associate degree. In New York, just below 28% of Latinos who earned a STEM
B.S. from an institution in the state earned an associate degree; in California, the figure was
slightly lower at 22.2%. In Illinois, 16.3% of Latino STEM B.S. holders earned an associate
degree. The proportion of Latino STEM B.S. holders who earned an AA/AS in Texas (9.5%) was
closer to the figure for all other states (9.2%).

135

Table 4.3. Location of Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree Holders by Associate Degree
Institutional Pathway
AA/AS @ CC
No AA/AS @
CC
Weighted Sample n = 12,142 n = 49,092
Region
Uncorrected χ
2
=419.219 df=8 New England <1% 100%
Design-based F(6.30, 1348.23)=4.227, p<0.001 Middle Atlantic 22.6% 77.4%
East North Central 10.4% 89.6%
West North Central 21.8% 78.2%
South Atlantic 37.4% 62.6%
East South Central 9.9% 90.1%
West South Central 9.0% 91.0%
Mountain 9.5% 90.5%
Pacific 21.0% 79.0%
Total Latino 19.8% 80.2%
State
Uncorrected χ
2
=651.432, df=5 California 22.2% 77.8%
Design-based F(4.00, 856.36)= 11.831, p<0.001 Florida 49.5% 50.5%
Illinois 16.3% 83.7%
New York 27.9% 72.1%
Texas 9.5% 90.5%
Other State 9.2% 90.8%
Notes: Row proportions. New England: Connecticut, Main, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Rhode
Island; Middle Atlantic: New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania; East North Central: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Ohio, and Wisconsin; West North Central: Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South
Dakota; South Atlantic: Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Virginia, and West Virginia; East South Central: Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee; West South Central:
Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas; Mountain: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico,
Utah, and Wyoming; Pacific: Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington.
Design-based F statistics are presented to account for the complex sample design of the 2003 NSRCG.
Source: Analyses of the NSF 2003 National Survey of Recent College Graduates (NSRCG), using final survey weight
(WTSURVY).

Table 4.4 displays the geographical distribution of baccalaureate-granting institutions of
Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders who followed each of the four pathways (CC/HSI;
CC/non-HSI; HSI; non-HSI). The table clearly reflects the concentration of HSIs in California,
Florida, and Texas
15
, as significantly higher (p<0.003) proportions of students who earned a
STEM bachelor’s degree in those three states attended an HSI (through entry after earning an
associate degree community college or entry without earning an AA/AS).

15
In 2003-04, there were 184 Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs) within the 50 U.S. states. Sixty eight (37%) were
located in California; ten (5.4%) were located in Florida; and 38 (20%) were located in Texas.
136

Table 4.4. Location of Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree Holders by Institutional Pathway
Institutional Pathway
CC/HSI
CC/non-
HSI
HSI Non-HSI
Weighted Sample n = 3,892 n = 8,250 n = 8,240 n = 40,851
Region

Uncorrected χ
2
=1190.495 df=24 New England
<1%
<1%
<1%
100%
Design-based Middle Atlantic
5.0%
17.6%
3.7%
73.7%
F(8.79, 1880.52) = 2.442, p<0.01 East North Central
1.4%
8.9%
4.1%
85.5%
West North Central
<1%
21.8%
<1%
78.2%
South Atlantic
12.8%
24.6%
8.4%
54.2%
East South Central
<1%
9.9%
<1%
90.1%
West South Central
4.1%
4.9%
32.2%
58.8%
Mountain
1.5%
8.0%
38.1%
52.4%
Pacific
8.2%
12.8%
13.7%
65.3%
Total Latino
6.4%
13.5%
13.5%
66.7%
State

Uncorrected χ
2
=1240.251, df=15 California
8.8%
13.4%
14.8%
63.0%
Design-based Florida
19.2%
30.3%
12.7%
37.8%
F(6.07, 1299.77)= 3.401, p<0.003 Illinois
2.7%
13.6%
7.8%
76.0%
New York
7.2%
20.9%
5.3%
66.8%
Texas
4.5%
5.0%
35.4%
55.1%
Other State
0.3%
8.9%
7.2%
83.6%
Notes: Row proportions. New England: Connecticut, Main, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Rhode
Island; Middle Atlantic: New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania; East North Central: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Ohio, and Wisconsin; West North Central: Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South
Dakota; South Atlantic: Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Virginia, and West Virginia; East South Central: Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee; West South Central:
Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas; Mountain: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico,
Utah, and Wyoming; Pacific: Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington.
Design-based F statistics are presented to account for the complex sample design of the 2003 NSRCG.
Source: Analyses of the NSF 2003 National Survey of Recent College Graduates (NSRCG), using final survey weight
(WTSURVY).

Differences in Institutional Pathways and Characteristics by National Origin

Table 4.5 illustrates that no significant differences in the institutional pathway to the
STEM baccalaureate exist by Latino national origin (i.e., Mexican American, Puerto Rican,
Cuban, and other).
137

Table 4.5. Institutional Pathways of Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree Holders by National
Origin
National Origin
Mexican
American
Puerto
Rican
Cuban Other
Latino
Weighted Sample n=29,160 n=7,714 n=3,904 n=20,454
Associate Degree
Uncorrected χ
2
=36.120 df=3 Earned an AA/AS
at CC
17.8% 26.6% 21.7% 19.8%
Design-based
F(2.83, 606.24)=0.774, p=0.502
Did not earn an AA/AS at
CC
82.2% 73.4% 78.3% 80.2%
Hispanic Serving Institution
Uncorrected χ
2
=111.338 df=3 B.S.-granting institution
designated as HSI
23.6% 8.8% 23.5% 17.9%
Design-based
F(2.28, 488.78)=1.310, p=0.272
B.S.-granting institution
not designated as HSI
76.4% 91.2% 76.5% 82.1%
Institutional Pathway
Uncorrected χ
2
=309.131 df=9 AA/AS at CC to
4-year HSI
4.5% 6.1% 13.3% 7.8%
Design-based
F(5.43, 1163.02)=2.141, p=0.053
AA/AS at CC to
4-year non-HSI
13.4% 20.5% 8.4% 12.0%
4-year HSI 19.1% 2.7% 10.2% 10.1%
4-year non-HSI 63.1% 70.8% 68.1% 70.1%
Notes: Column proportions. Design-based F statistics are presented to account for the complex sample design of the
2003 NSRCG.
Source: Analyses of the NSF 2003 National Survey of Recent College Graduates (NSRCG), using final survey weight
(WTSURVY).

Differences in Demographic Characteristics by Institutional Pathway
Table 4.6 illustrates that significant differences (p<.001) exist in some of the
demographic characteristics of Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders who did and did not earn
an associate degree. A greater proportion of associate degree holders were non-traditionally aged
students, i.e., earned their first bachelor’s degree at over the age of 24. Nearly 63% of AA/AS
degree holders were non-traditional students, compared to 22.7% of non-AA/AS degree holders.
Comparable proportions (p=0.053) of associate degree holders and non-associate degree holders
earned their STEM B.S. from an institution in the same state in which they graduated high school
(78.8% versus 76.1%).
Significant differences in the highest level of education attained by any parent (p<.001)
are also shown in Table 4.6. A larger proportion of associate degree holders had a parent that did
138

not graduate from high school compared to non-associate degree holders (29.5% and 12.5%,
respectively). The highest reported parental education level was more commonly ‘some college,
vocational, or trade school’ among Latino STEM B.S. holders who earned an associate degree
compared to those who did not earn an associate degree (30.3% versus 25.6%). Non-associate
degree holders were more represented than associate degree holders at all other parental
education levels in terms of proportion.
Table 4.7 illustrates that statistically significant differences in demographic
characteristics also exist among Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders by institutional pathway.
A significantly higher proportion (p<0.001) of Latinos who followed the ‘CC/HSI’ and ‘CC/non-
HSI’ pathway to the STEM bachelor’s degree were non-traditionally aged (73.2% and 58.0%,
respectively). The high proportions of non-traditionally aged students who traversed these two
pathways stood in stark contrast to the ‘non-HSI’ pathway, in which 19.1% of Latinos were non-
traditionally aged.
Comparable proportions (p=0.055) of Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders who
followed the four institutional pathways graduated from a four-year college/university in the same
state in which they graduated high school.

139

Table 4.6. Demographic Characteristics of Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree Holders by
Associate Degree
Institutional Pathway

AA/AS @
CC
No AA/AS
@ CC
Total
Latinos
Weighted Sample n = 12,142 n = 49,092 n=61,233
Non-Traditional Status
Uncorrected χ
2
=881.470 df=1
Non-Traditionally Aged
Student
62.8% 22.7% 30.7%
Design-based
F(1, 214)=55.962, p<0.001
Traditionally Aged Student 37.2% 77.3% 69.3%
In-State College Attendance
Uncorrected χ
2
=4.923, df=1
Attended In-State 4-yr
College
78.8% 76.1% 76.6%
Design-based
F(1, 214)= 0.296, p=0.5873
Attended Out-of-State 4-yr
college
21.2% 23.9% 23.4%
Highest Parental Education Level
Uncorrected χ
2
=333.280, df=6 Less than high school 29.5% 12.5% 15.9%
Design-based
F(4.87, 1041.79)= 4.474, p<0.001
High school diploma or
equivalent
14.4% 21.4% 20.0%

Some college, vocational, or
trade school
30.3% 25.6% 26.5%
Bachelor’s degree 11.6% 16.7% 15.7%
Master’s degree 10.8% 14.1% 13.4%

Professional degree (e.g., JD,
MD)
1.8% 5.6% 4.8%
Doctorate 1.6% 4.1% 3.6%
Notes: Column proportions.
**
May not sum to total due to rounding. Students were determined to have attended
college ‘in-state’ if the baccalaureate-granting institution was in the same state from which they graduated high school.
Design-based F statistics are presented to account for the complex sample design of the 2003 NSRCG.
Source: Analyses of the NSF 2003 National Survey of Recent College Graduates (NSRCG), using final survey weight
(WTSURVY).

The highest parental education level also significantly varied (p<0.004) by institutional
pathway among Latino STEM B.S.-degree holders. Parents of Latinos who followed the
‘CC/HSI,’ ‘CC/non-HSI,’ and ‘HSI’ pathways had lower levels educational attainment compared
to those Latinos who followed the ‘non-HSI’ pathway. Nearly half of Latino STEM B.S. degree
holders who followed the ‘CC/HSI’ pathway were first generation college students, i.e., they had
parent(s) who did not attend any college, compared to 41.2% of students from the ‘CC/non-HSI’
pathway and 45.3% of Latino students from the ‘HSI’ pathway. Parents of Latino STEM B.S.-
degree holders who followed the ‘non-HSI’ pathway achieved the highest levels of educational
attainment. Slightly over 43% of Latinos who traversed the ‘non-HSI’ pathway attained a
140

bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to 27.0% of those in the ‘CC/HSI’ pathway, 25.1% of
those in the ‘CC/non-HSI’ pathway, and 26.8% of those in the ‘HSI’ pathway.

141
Table 4.7. Demographic Characteristics of Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree Holders by Institutional Pathway
Institutional Pathway
CC/HSI
CC/non-
HSI
HSI Non-HSI
Total Latino
Weighted Sample n = 3,892 n = 8,250 n = 8,240 n = 40,851 n= 61,233
Non-Traditional Status

Uncorrected χ
2
=1098.118 df=3 Non-Traditionally Aged Student 73.2% 58.0% 40.8% 19.1% 30.7%
Design-based
F(2.78, 594.37)=26.997, p<0.001
Traditionally Aged Student 26.8% 42.0% 59.2% 80.9% 69.3%
In-State College Attendance

Uncorrected χ
2
=118.396, df=3 Attended In-State 4-yr College 84.7% 76.1% 88.4% 73.6% 76.6%
Design-based
F(2.57, 550.52)= 2.676, p=0.055
Attended Out-of-State 4-yr college 15.3% 23.9% 11.6% 26.4% 23.4%
Highest Parental Education Level

Uncorrected χ
2
=575.888, df=18 Less than high school
28.0%
30.2%
18.8%
11.3% 15.9%
Design-based
F(10.10, 2160.38)= 2.598, p<0.004
High school diploma or equivalent 21.7% 10.9% 26.5% 20.4% 20.0%
Some college, vocational, or trade school 23.3% 33.7% 28.0% 25.1% 26.5%
Bachelor’s degree
16.0%
9.6%
18.6%
16.4% 15.7%
Master’s degree
11.1%
10.7%
6.5%
15.6% 13.4%
Professional degree (e.g., JD, MD)
<1%
2.6%
1.6%
6.4% 4.8%
Doctorate
<1%
2.3%
<1%
4.9% 3.6%
Notes: Column proportions.
**
May not sum to total due to rounding. Students were determined to have attended college ‘in-state’ if the baccalaureate-granting
institution was in the same state from which they graduated high school. Design-based F statistics are presented to account for the complex sample design of
the 2003 NSRCG.
Source: Analyses of the NSF 2003 National Survey of Recent College Graduates (NSRCG), using final survey weight (WTSURVY).
142

Differences in Field of Study by Pathway
Comparable proportions (p=.072) of Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders who did
and did not earn an AA/AS majored in each of the fields of study listed in Table 4.8.

Table 4.8. Field of Study of Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree Holders by Associate Degree
Institutional Pathway
AA/AS @ CC
No AA/AS
@ CC
Total
Latinos
Weighted Sample n = 12,142 n = 49,092 n=61,233
Field of Study
Uncorrected χ
2
=131.690, df=6
Computer
Science/Mathematics
9.3% 9.9% 9.7%
Design-based
F(2.71, 579.47)= 2.417, p=0.072
Biological, Agricultural, and
Environmental Science
7.9% 13.9% 12.7%
Physical Science 0.9% 2.8% 2.4%
Social and Behavioral Science 66.9% 54.9% 57.3%
Engineering 5.2% 11.2% 10.0%
Science & Engineering-related 9.8% 7.3% 7.8%
Notes:
**
May not sum to total due to rounding. Design-based F statistics are presented to account for the complex
sample design of the 2003 NSRCG.
Source: Analyses of the NSF 2003 National Survey of Recent College Graduates (NSRCG), using final survey weight
(WTSURVY).

Although there were no statistically significant differences in field of study between
Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders who did and did not earn an associate degree, Table 4.9
illustrates that significant differences (p<0.001) in field of study did exist between Latinos
following the four institutional pathways to the STEM baccalaureate. Large proportions of
Latinos who graduated from an HSI after earning an associate degree or without earning an
associate degree majored in Computer or Mathematical Sciences (17.9% and 26.6%,
respectively). These figures are strikingly higher than the proportions of Latinos in the ‘CC/non-
HSI’ and ‘non-HSI’ pathways (5.3% and 6.5%, respectively). Latinos STEM B.S. degree holders
who followed the ‘HSI’ pathway were more evenly distributed amongst the various STEM fields.
Latinos following the ‘HSI’ pathway earned their degrees in computer science/mathematics,
biological and related sciences, physical sciences, and engineering in the highest proportions,
while those students in the ‘CC/HSI,’ ‘CC/non-HSI,’ and ‘non-HSI’ pathways were heavily
143

concentrated in the social and behavioral sciences. Only 35.2% of Latinos who traversed the
‘HSI’ pathway earned their bachelor’s degree in the social and behavioral sciences, compared to
60.3% in the ‘CC/HSI’ pathway, 70% in the ‘CC/non-HSI’ pathway, and 58.9% in the ‘non-HSI’
pathway. Interestingly, Latinos following the ‘CC/HSI’ pathway earned the bachelor’s degree in
S&E-related fields (which include health-related fields) in the highest proportions (17.6%).

144

Table 4.9. Field of Study of Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree Holders by Institutional Pathway
Institutional Pathway
CC/HSI
CC/non-
HSI
HSI Non-HSI Total Latinos
Weighted Sample n = 3,892 n = 8,250 n = 8,240 n = 40,851 n=61,233
Field of Study
Uncorrected χ
2
=713.849 df=18 Computer Science/Mathematics 17.9% 5.3% 26.6% 6.5% 9.7%
Design-based
F(6.58, 1408.38) = 3.6532,
p<0.001
Biological, Agricultural, and
Environmental Science
2.5% 10.5% 16.0% 12.7% 12.7%
Physical Science 0.6% 1.0% 3.1% 2.7% 2.4%
Social and Behavioral Science 60.3% 70.0% 35.2% 58.9% 57.3%
Engineering 1.1% 7.1% 13.9% 10.6% 10.0%

Science and Engineering (S&E)-
related
17.6% 6.1% 5.1% 7.8% 7.8%
Notes: Column proportions.
**
May not sum to total due to rounding. Design-based F statistics are presented to account for the complex sample design
of the 2003 NSRCG.
Source: Analyses of the NSF 2003 National Survey of Recent College Graduates (NSRCG), using final survey weight (WTSURVY).

145

Financial Aid Pathways of Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree Holders
The second research question of the present study turned to the forms of financial aid
used by Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders, the underlying financing strategies employed by
this group, and the effect of various levels of indebtedness on their enrollment in graduate school.
In this section, I describe the differences in the forms of financial aid used by Latino STEM B.S.
degree holders by institutional pathway. I also present the results of the latent class analysis,
which characterize the latent financing strategies derived from the observed, or manifest,
financing mechanisms (e.g., loans, earnings, work study, etc.). The section concludes by
examining differences in these unobserved financing strategies by institutional pathway, national
origin, and other demographic and baccalaureate-granting institutional characteristics.
Differences in Forms of Financial Aid Used by Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree Holders by
Institutional Pathway
Table 4.10 illustrates that Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders who earned an
associate degree used various forms of financial aid at rates different from those non-associate
degree holders. In particular, a lower proportion of associate degree holders used
scholarships/grants to finance college than non-associate degree holders (59.2% versus 67.8%).
Further, slightly over 37% of Latino STEM B.S. holders who earned an associate degree received
parental support in the form of a gift to finance college; this is significantly lower than the over
60% of non-associate degree holders who used this form of financial support.
A higher proportion of Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders who earned an associate
degree received support from their employer to finance college than non-associate degree holders
(14.6% versus 7.4%). The proportion of associate degree earners who received work study to
finance college was lower than that of non-associate degree earners (17.1% and 30.5%,
respectively).
146

Associate degree earners and non-associate degree earners among Latino STEM
bachelor’s degree holders borrowed from a school, bank, or the government, and/or from their
parents or family at comparable rates. Additionally, there were no differences in the proportions
of associate degree holders and non-associate degree holders among Latinos STEM
baccalaureates who used earnings to finance college.

147
Table 4.10. Forms of Financial Aid Used by Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree Holders by Associate Degree
Institutional Pathway
AA/AS @ CC
No AA/AS @
CC
Total
Latinos
Weighted Sample n = 12,142 n = 49,092 n=61,233
Loans
Uncorrected χ
2
=38.766, df=1 Borrowed from school, bank, or government to finance college 59.2% 67.8% 66.1%
Design-based
F(1, 214)= 3.107, p=0.079
Did not borrow from school, bank, or government to finance college 40.8% 32.2% 33.9%
Earnings
Uncorrected χ
2
=0.060, df=1 Used earnings to finance college 59.7% 60.0% 59.9%
Design-based
F(1, 214)= 0.004, p=0.947
Did not use earnings to finance college 40.3% 40.0% 40.1%
Scholarships/Grants
Uncorrected χ
2
=49.679, df=1 Received scholarship or grant to finance college 57.3% 67.1% 65.2%
Design-based
F(1, 214)= 3.889, p<0.05
Did not receive scholarship or grant to finance college 42.7% 32.9% 34.8%
Work Study
Uncorrected χ
2
=103.931, df=1 Used work study to finance college 17.1% 30.5% 27.8%
Design-based
F(1, 214)= 9.277, p<0.003
Did not use work study to finance college 82.9% 69.5% 72.2%
Parental/Familial Support
(not to be repaid)

Uncorrected χ
2
=251.637, df=1 Received parental/familial support not to be repaid to finance college 37.2% 60.3% 55.7%
Design-based
F(1, 214)= 23.125, p<0.001
Did not receive parental/familial support not to be repaid to finance
college
62.8% 39.7% 44.3%
Parental/Familial Loans
Uncorrected χ
2
=0.313, df=1 Received loan from parents/family to finance college 7.2% 7.6% 7.5%
Design-based
F(1, 214)= 0.027, p=0.8688
Did not receive loan from parents/family to finance college 92.8% 92.4% 92.5%

148
Table 4.10, Continued
Institutional Pathway
AA/AS @ CC
No AA/AS @
CC
Total
Latinos
Weighted Sample n = 12,142 n = 49,092 n=61,233
Employer
Uncorrected χ
2
=75.209, df=1 Used support from employer to finance college 14.6% 7.4% 8.8%
Design-based
F(1, 214)= 5.666, p<0.02
Did not use support from employer to finance college 85.4% 92.6% 91.2%
Other Source
Uncorrected χ
2
=91.549, df=1 Received support from some other source to finance college 4.6% 1.0% 1.7%
Design-based
F(1, 214)= 7.935, p<0.01
Did not receive support from some other source to finance college 95.4% 99.0% 98.3%

149

Table 4.11 illustrates the differences in the forms of financial aid used by Latino STEM
bachelor’s degree holders in each of the institutional pathways of interest (i.e., ‘CC/HSI’,
‘CC/non-HSI’, ‘HSI’, ‘non-HSI’). Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders who followed the
‘CC/HSI’ pathway used loans from a school, bank, or the government to finance college at a
significantly lower (p<0.02) rate than students who followed the ‘CC/non-HSI,’ ‘HSI,’ and ‘non-
HSI’ pathways. Similarly, about 30% of Latinos who followed the ‘CC/HSI’ pathway to the
STEM baccalaureate received parental support in the form of a gift to finance college; a
significantly lower (p<0.001) rate than students who traversed the ‘CC/non-HSI,’ ‘HSI,’ and
‘non-HSI’ pathways (41.1%, 53.3%, and 61.7%, respectively). The table below also indicates
that Latinos who followed the ‘CC/non-HSI’ pathway more commonly (p<0.05) received support
from their employer to finance their undergraduate education compared to students from the other
three pathways. Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders who followed the ‘CC/HSI’ pathway
were the least likely (p<0.05) to have received work study to finance college (11.1%), while those
in the ‘non-HSI’ pathway most commonly received work study (31.3%).

150
Table 4.11. Forms of Financial Aid Used by Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree Holders by Institutional Pathway
Institutional Pathway
CC/HSI CC/non-HSI HSI Non-HSI
Total
Latinos
Weighted Sample n = 3,892 n = 8,250 n = 8,240 n = 40,851 n=61,233
Loans

Uncorrected χ
2
=214.476, df=3
Borrowed from school, bank, or government to
finance college
48.5% 64.2% 69.0% 67.6% 66.1%
Design-based
F(4.75, 1016.73)= 3.042, p<0.02
Did not borrow from school, bank, or
government to finance college
51.5% 35.8% 31.0% 32.4% 33.9%
Earnings
Uncorrected χ
2
=4.779, df=3 Used earnings to finance college 63.6% 57.8% 60.8% 59.9% 60.0%
Design-based
F(2.49, 533.87)= 0.100, p=0.939
Did not use earnings to finance college 36.4% 42.2% 39.2% 40.1% 40.0%
Scholarships/Grants
Uncorrected χ
2
=54.449, df=3
Received scholarship or grant to finance
college
53.4% 59.1% 66.4% 67.3% 65.2%
Design-based
F(2.93, 627.72)= 1.488, p=0.217
Did not receive scholarship or grant to finance
college
46.6% 40.9% 33.6% 32.7% 34.8%
Work Study
Uncorrected χ
2
=124.746, df=3 Used work study to finance college 11.1% 19.9% 26.7% 31.3% 27.8%
Design-based
F(2.69, 575.15)= 2.837, p<0.05
Did not use work study to finance college 88.9% 80.1% 73.3% 68.7% 72.2%
Parental/Familial Support
(not to be repaid)

Uncorrected χ
2
=294.010, df=3
Received parental/familial support not to be
repaid to finance college
28.9% 41.1% 53.3% 61.7% 55.7%
Design-based
F(2.95, 630.62)= 9.526, p<0.001
Did not receive parental/familial support not to
be repaid to finance college
71.1% 58.9% 46.7% 38.3% 44.3%
Parental/Familial Loans
Uncorrected χ
2
=40.921, df=3
Received loan from parents/family to finance
college
0.9% 10.1% 6.5% 7.8% 7.5%
Design-based
F(2.05, 438.57)= 2.193, p=0.112
Did not receive loan from parents/family to
finance college
99.1% 89.9% 93.5% 92.2% 92.5%

151
Table 4.11, Continued
Institutional Pathway
CC/HSI CC/non-HSI HSI Non-HSI
Total
Latinos
Weighted Sample n = 3,892 n = 8,250 n = 8,240 n = 40,851 n=61,233
Employer
Uncorrected χ
2
=101.051, df=3 Used support from employer to finance college 9.4% 17.1% 8.7% 7.2% 8.8%
Design-based
F(2.51, 537.49)= 3.300, p<0.05
Did not use support from employer to finance
college
90.6% 82.9% 91.3% 92.8% 91.2%
Other Source
Uncorrected χ
2
=125.369, df=3
Received support from some other source to
finance college
7.3% 3.3% 0.4% 1.1% 1.7%
Design-based
F(1.79, 383.92)=3.873 , p<0.05
Did not receive support from some other
source to finance college
92.7% 96.7% 99.6% 98.9% 98.3%
Notes: Column proportions.
**
May not sum to total due to rounding. Design-based F statistics are presented to account for the complex sample design of the
2003 NSRCG.
Source: Analyses of the NSF 2003 National Survey of Recent College Graduates (NSRCG), using final survey weight (WTSURVY).

152
Differences in the Relative Level of Indebtedness by Institutional Pathway
While the above tables reveal differences in the rate of borrowing among Latino STEM
bachelor’s degree holders by institutional pathway, they do not indicate if and how the relative
level of indebtedness resulting from borrowing differ by pathway. To address this question, I
compare the relative debt levels (i.e., no debt, low debt, and high debt)
16
of Latino STEM
bachelor’s degree holders below and examine the differences by associate degree and institutional
pathway.
Patterns of borrowing among Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders who earned an
associate degree and those that did not earn an associate degree were significantly (p<0.02)
different. As shown in Table 4.12, associate degree holders were more likely to borrow at a high
relative debt level (25.1%) than non-associate degree holders (19.8%). Interestingly, Latino
STEM bachelor’s degree holders who earned an associate degree were more commonly in the ‘no
debt’ category compared to non-associate degree earners (35.8% versus 25.9%). More than half
of non-associate degree holders (54.3%) borrowed at a low relative debt level compared to 39.1%
of associate degree holders.

16
For non-associate degree holders, low debt is defined as borrowing a non-zero amount less than one and a half times
the mean cumulative indebtedness among all students in the graduating class at the B.S.-granting institution. High debt
is defined as borrowing at least one and a half times the mean cumulative indebtedness among all students in the
graduating class at the B.S.-granting institution. For associate degree holders, low debt is defined as borrowing a non-
zero amount less than the mean cumulative indebtedness among all students in the graduating class at the B.S.-granting
institution. High debt is defined as borrowing more than the mean cumulative indebtedness among all students in the
graduating class at the B.S.-granting institution.

153
Table 4.12. Relative Debt Level of Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree Holders by Associate
Degree

Notes: Column proportions.
**
May not sum to total due to rounding. Design-based F statistics are presented to account
for the complex sample design of the 2003 NSRCG.
Source: Analyses of the 2003 College Board Annual Survey of Colleges and Universities and the NSF 2003 National
Survey of Recent College Graduates (NSRCG), using final survey weight (WTSURVY).

Table 4.13 illustrates that significant (p<0.02) differences exist in the levels of
indebtedness among Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders who followed each of the
institutional pathways of interest. Those individuals in the ‘CC/HSI’ pathway were less likely to
borrow at the low relative debt level and the high relative debt level than Latinos from the other
three pathways. Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders who followed the ‘non-HSI’ and ‘HSI’
pathways were similarly distributed amongst the no debt, low debt, and high debt categories.
Latinos who followed the ‘CC/non-HSI’ pathway to the STEM B.S. degree were more likely to
borrow at a high relative debt level compared to those individuals in the other three pathways.

Institutional Pathway
AA/AS @ CC
No AA/AS @
CC
Total Latinos
Weighted Sample n = 12,142 n = 49,092 n=61,233
Relative Debt Level
Uncorrected χ
2
=110.241, df=2 No Debt 35.8% 25.9% 27.9%
Design-based Low Debt 39.1% 54.3% 51.3%
F(1.94, 414.16)= 4.632, p<0.02 High Debt 25.1% 19.8% 20.8%

154
Table 4.13. Relative Debt Level of Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree Holders by Institutional
Pathway
Institutional Pathway
CC/HSI
CC/non-
HSI
HSI Non-HSI
Total
Latinos
Weighted Sample n = 3,892 n = 8,250 n = 8,240 n = 40,851 n=61,233
Relative Debt Level
Uncorrected χ
2
=214.476 df=6 No Debt 52.0% 28.2% 23.8% 26.3% 27.9%
Design-based Low Debt 30.3% 43.2% 52.6% 54.7% 51.3%
F(4.75, 1016.73) = 3.042, p<0.02 High Debt 17.7% 28.6% 23.6% 20.0% 20.8%
Notes: Column proportions.
**
May not sum to total due to rounding. Design-based F statistics are presented to account
for the complex sample design of the 2003 NSRCG.
Source: Analyses of the 2003 College Board Annual Survey of Colleges and Universities and the NSF 2003 National
Survey of Recent College Graduates (NSRCG), using final survey weight (WTSURVY).

Differences in the Relative Level of Indebtedness by Parental Education
Relative debt levels of Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders varied significantly
(p<0.001) by parental education level. As illustrated in Table 4.14, students whose parents had
lower levels of educational attainment were most likely to borrow, and the majority of these
students accumulated low relative debt levels. Students whose parents earned any graduate degree
(master’s level or higher) were more likely to complete the bachelor’s degree with no debt.

155
Table 4.14. Relative Debt Level of Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree Holders by Highest
Parental Education Level
Relative Debt Level
No Debt Low Debt High Debt
Weighted Sample n =17,064 n = 31,425 n = 12,743
Highest Parental Education
Level

Uncorrected χ
2
=399.388, df=12 Less than high school 28.0% 48.1% 23.9%
Design-based
F(9.72, 2079.23)=3.470, p<0.001
High school diploma
or equivalent
16.5% 60.5% 23.1%

Some college, vocational,
or trade school
25.0% 48.9% 26.1%
Bachelor’s degree 28.0% 58.1% 13.8%
Master’s degree 35.8% 45.3% 18.9%

Professional degree
(e.g., JD, MD)
49.1% 45.7% 5.2%
Doctorate 54.5% 32.8% 12.6%
Total Latinos 27.9% 51.3% 20.8%
` Notes: Row proportions.
**
May not sum to total due to rounding. Design-based F statistics are presented to account
for the complex sample design of the 2003 NSRCG.
Source: Analyses of the 2003 College Board Annual Survey of Colleges and Universities and the NSF 2003 National
Survey of Recent College Graduates (NSRCG), using final survey weight (WTSURVY).

Differences in Financial Aid Pathways and Relative Indebtedness by National Origin
Very few differences exist in the forms of financial aid used by Latino STEM bachelor’s
degree holders by national origin. As Table 4.15 illustrates, comparable proportions of Mexican
Americans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and Latinos of ‘other’ national origin used loans, earnings,
work study, employer support, and parental/familial support (gifts and loans) to finance college.
There were significant differences (p<0.01) in the proportions of the aforementioned national
origin groups using scholarships and/or grants to finance their undergraduate education: 76.5% of
Puerto Ricans received scholarships and/or grants compared to 67.9% of Mexican Americans,
64.8% of Cubans and 57.0% of Latinos of ‘other’ national origin.
There were no statistically significant differences in the patterns of indebtedness among
Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders by national origin (Table 4.16). In other words, similar
proportions of Mexican American, Puerto Rican, Cuban, and ‘Other’ Latino STEM bachelor’s
degree holders borrowed at the low debt and high debt levels.

156
Table 4.15. Forms of Financial Aid Used by Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree Holders by National Origin
National Origin

Mexican
American
Puerto Rican Cuban Other
Total
Latinos
Weighted Sample n = 29,160 n = 7,715 n = 3,904 n = 20,454 n=61,233
Loans

Uncorrected χ
2
=61.322, df=3
Borrowed from school, bank, or
government to finance college
68.5% 72.8% 61.4% 61.0% 66.1%
Design-based
F(2.82, 604.13)= 1.674, p=0.175
Did not borrow from school, bank, or
government to finance college
31.5% 27.2% 38.6% 39.0% 33.9%
Earnings
Uncorrected χ
2
=71.360, df=3 Used earnings to finance college 61.4% 68.7% 62.9% 54.0% 60.0%
Design-based
F(2.93, 626.62)= 2.360, p=0.072
Did not use earnings to finance college 38.6% 31.3% 37.1% 46.0% 40.0%
Scholarships/Grants
Uncorrected χ
2
=134.975, df=3
Received scholarship or grant to
finance college
67.9% 76.5% 64.8% 57.0% 65.2%
Design-based
F(2.95, 630.66)= 4.076, p<0.01
Did not receive scholarship or grant to
finance college
32.1% 23.5% 35.2% 43.0% 34.8%
Work Study
Uncorrected χ
2
=36.820, df=3 Used work study to finance college 30.1% 21.4% 21.6% 28.3% 27.8%
Design-based
F(2.96, 633.01)= 1.263, p=0.286
Did not use work study to finance
college
69.9% 78.6% 78.4% 71.7% 72.2%
Parental/Familial Support
(not to be repaid)

Uncorrected χ
2
=3.668, df=3
Received parental/familial support not
to be repaid to finance college
55.8% 58.2% 55.7% 54.6% 55.7%
Design-based
F(2.82, 602.82)= 0.102, p=0.952
Did not receive parental/familial
support not to be repaid to finance
college
44.2% 41.8% 44.3% 45.4% 44.3%

157
Table 4.15, Continued

National Origin

Mexican
American
Puerto Rican Cuban
Other
Latino
Total
Latinos
Weighted Sample n = 29,160 n = 7,715 n = 3,904 n = 20,454 n = 61,233
Parental/Familial Loans
Uncorrected χ
2
=3.668, df=3
Received loan from parents/family to
finance college
8.1% 7.4% 11.7% 5.9% 7.5%
Design-based
F(2.89, 618.15)= 0.667, p=0.567
Did not receive loan from
parents/family to finance college
91.9% 92.7% 88.3% 94.1% 92.5%
Employer
Uncorrected χ
2
=32.674, df=3
Used support from employer to finance
college
10.7% 7.5% 4.6% 7.6% 8.8%
Design-based
F(2.50, 535.58)= 1.100, p=0.343
Did not use support from employer to
finance college
89.3% 92.6% 95.4% 92.4% 91.2%
Other Source
Uncorrected χ
2
=110.160, df=3
Received support from some other
source to finance college
0.4% 1.5% 0.3% 3.9% 1.7%
Design-based
F(2.12, 454.51)=7.728 , p<0.001
Did not receive support from some
other source to finance college
99.6% 98.5% 99.7% 96.1% 98.3%
Notes:
**
May not sum to total due to rounding. Design-based F statistics are presented to account for the complex sample design of the 2003 NSRCG.
Source: Analyses of the NSF 2003 National Survey of Recent College Graduates (NSRCG), using final survey weight (WTSURVY).

158
Table 4.16. Relative Debt Level of Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree Holders by National
Origin
National Origin

Mexican
American
Puerto
Rican
Cuban Other
Total
Latinos
Weighted Sample n = 29,160 n = 7,715 n = 3,904 n = 20,454 n=61,233
Relative Debt Level
Uncorrected χ
2
=78.107 df=6 No Debt 24.2% 25.8% 36.7% 32.2% 27.9%
Design-based Low Debt 53.5% 50.7% 42.5% 50.1% 51.3%
F(5.48, 1172.95) = 1.085,
p=0.369
High Debt 22.3% 23.5% 20.8% 17.7% 20.8%
Notes: Column proportions.
**
May not sum to total due to rounding. Design-based F statistics are presented to account
for the complex sample design of the 2003 NSRCG.
Source: Analyses of the 2003 College Board Annual Survey of Colleges and Universities and the NSF 2003 National
Survey of Recent College Graduates (NSRCG), using final survey weight (WTSURVY).

College Financing Strategies Employed by Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree Holders
In order to characterize the underlying financing strategies employed by Latino STEM
bachelor’s degree holders, I carried out a latent class analysis (LCA) of the manifest, or observed,
financial aid variables in the NSRCG dataset. As explained in the previous chapter, latent class
analysis is a multivariate technique that aims to uncover clusters of individuals who are similar
with respect to a set of characteristics measured by outcomes. In this application, the outcomes
include the forms of financial aid used by the respondents, i.e., loans, earnings, work study,
scholarships/grants, employer support, parental/familial support (gifts), parental/familial loans,
and other sources of support. The latent classes represent the financing strategies employed by
the respondents.
Three latent classes, or financing strategies, adequately (entropy=0.594) describe the
eight dichotomous financial aid indicator variables in the NSRCG dataset. Results from the
Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin Likelihood Ratio Test (Muthén, 2001) for two (H
0
) versus three
classes indicates that two latent classes do not adequately describe the data (p<0.001), while the
same test for four (H
0
) versus three classes indicates that three classes are sufficient (p=0.539).

159
These three latent classes structure the NSRCG response cases with respect to the set of
financial aid indicator variables. The conditional probabilities of using each of the eight forms of
financial aid for each of the three classes are shown in Table 4.17 and graphed in Figure 4.1.

Table 4.17. Conditional Probabilities of Using Financial Aid Forms, by Latent Class
Latent Class
Class 1 Class 2 Class 3
Form of Financial
Aid

Work Study 2.1% 3.3% 48.4%
Loans (from school, bank, or government) 60.9% 26.2% 84.5%
Earnings 53.2% 47.2% 67.9%
Employer Support 23.5% 2.3% 6.2%
Scholarships/Grants 45.6% 44.9% 87.2%
Parental/Familial Support (not to be repaid) 14.9% 100.0% 63.2%
Parental/Familial Loan 6.4% 8.4% 9.7%
Other Source 5.8% 1.1% 1.0%

Source: Analyses of the NSF 2003 National Survey of Recent College Graduates (NSRCG).

160
Figure 4.1 Conditional Probabilities of Use by Financial Aid Support Mechanism

Source: Analyses of the NSF 2003 National Survey of Recent College Graduates (NSRCG).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Financial Support Mechanism
Conditional Probability of Use
Class 1 2.1% 60.9% 53.2% 23.5% 45.6% 14.9% 6.4% 5.8%
Class 2 3.3% 26.2% 47.2% 2.3% 44.9% >99.9% 8.4% 1.1%
Class 3 48.4% 84.5% 67.9% 6.2% 87.2% 63.2% 9.7% 1.0%
Work Study
Loans (School,
Bank, Gov't)
Earnings Employer
Scholarships/
Grants
Parents/relatives
not to be repaid
Loan from
Parents/
Relatives
Other Source

161
Based on the patterns of conditional probabilities of using a particular form of financial
aid, I interpreted the latent classes above to represent three, distinct college financing strategies:
members of Class 1 financed college by being “self-supporters,” i.e., they received little to no
parental support, instead relying primarily on loans, earnings, employer support and
scholarships/grants. Members of Class 2 can be described as being “parentally supported”; i.e.,
they had a high probability of receiving parental/familial support not to be repaid, and mid-to-low
probabilities of using loans, earnings, and scholarships/grants. Member of the final class, Class 3,
financed college through “balanced support,” i.e., they had a high probability of using multiple
forms of financial aid ranging from loans, work study, earnings, scholarships/grants, and
parental/familial support (not to be repaid).
For each respondent in the 2003 NSRCG dataset, conditional probabilities of belonging
to each of the aforementioned latent classes were calculated based on his or her responses on the
eight financial aid indicator variables. Each respondent was assigned to the class for which he or
she had the highest probability of membership. Based on these class assignments (i.e., Class
1=Self-Support; Class 2=Parental Support; Class 3=Balanced Support), I was able to examine the
differences in the college financing strategies employed by Latino STEM bachelor’s degree
holders by institutional pathway, national origin, and other demographic and baccalaureate-
granting institutional characteristics. These differences are discussed below.
Table 4.18 indicates that significant differences (p<0.001) exist in the college financing
strategies employed by Latino STEM bachelor degree holders who earned an associate degree
and those who did not earn an AA/AS. Nearly 40% of Latino STEM B.S. degree holders who
earned an associate degree were ‘self-supporters,’ compared to just below 15% of non-associate
degree holders. A smaller proportion of associate degree holders were ‘parentally supported’
compared to non-associate degree holders (17.1% versus 30.0%). The largest proportions of

162
Latino AA/AS earners and non-AA/AS earners were classified as receiving ‘balanced support;’
however, Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders who did not earn an associate degree more
commonly fell into this ‘balanced support’ category than those who did earn an associate degree.

Table 4.18. College Financing Strategies of Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree Holders by
Associate Degree

Notes: Column proportions.
**
May not sum to total due to rounding. Design-based F statistics are presented to account
for the complex sample design of the 2003 NSRCG.
Source: Analyses of the NSF 2003 National Survey of Recent College Graduates (NSRCG), using final survey weight
(WTSURVY).

Table 4.19 illustrates the college financing strategies employed by Latino STEM
bachelor’s degree holders vary significantly (p<0.001) by institutional pathway. Nearly half of
Latino STEM B.S. degree holders who followed the ‘CC/HSI’ pathway employed the ‘self-
support’ financing strategy, compared to 34.3% of those in the ‘CC/non-HSI’ pathway, 17.9% of
those in the ‘HSI’ pathway, and 14.2% of those in the ‘non-HSI’ pathway. Latino STEM
bachelor’s degree holders who followed the ‘non-HSI’ pathway were the most likely to be
‘parentally supported;’ whereas similar proportions of Latinos following the ‘HSI’ and ‘non-HSI’
pathways used ‘balanced support’ as a college financing strategy (56.9% and 54.8%,
respectively).
Institutional Pathway

AA/AS @
CC
No AA/AS @
CC
Total Latinos
Weighted Sample n = 12,142 n = 49,092 n=61,233
College Financing Strategy
Uncorrected χ
2
=450.207, df=2 Self-Support 39.2% 14.9% 19.7%
Design-based Parental Support 17.1% 30.0% 27.4%
F(1.84, 394.43)= 17.905, p<0.001 Balanced Support 43.7% 55.2% 52.9%

163
Table 4.19. College Financing Strategies Used by Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree Holders
by Institutional Pathway
Institutional Pathway
CC/HSI
CC/non-
HSI
HSI Non-HSI
Total
Latinos
Weighted Sample n = 3,892 n = 8,250 n = 8,240 n = 40,851 n=61,233
College Financing
Strategy

Uncorrected χ
2
=516.937
df=6
Self Support 49.7% 34.3% 17.9% 14.2% 19.7%
Design-based
Parental
Support
16.3% 17.5% 25.2% 31.0% 27.4%
F(5.11, 1092.76) = 7.479,
p<0.001
Balanced
Support
34.0% 48.3% 56.9% 54.8% 52.9%
Notes: Column proportions.
**
May not sum to total due to rounding. Design-based F statistics are presented to account
for the complex sample design of the 2003 NSRCG.
Source: Analyses of NSF 2003 National Survey of Recent College Graduates (NSRCG), using final survey weight
(WTSURVY).

Differences in the college financing strategies of Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders
by various demographic characteristics are shown in Table 4.20. Comparable (p=0.0915)
percentages of Mexican American, Puerto Rican, Cuban and ‘other’ Latino STEM B.S.-degree
holders utilized each of the financing strategies shown in the table below. There were, however,
significant differences (p<0.001) in the strategies employed by non-traditionally aged and
traditionally-aged Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders. Non-traditional students employed the
‘self support’ financing strategy at a disproportionately high rate, relative to their share of the
Latino STEM B.S. holder population. Further, non-traditional students were underrepresented
among those students who employed the ‘parental support’ or ‘balanced support’ strategies.
Table 4.20 shows that in-state and out-of-state college attendees were proportionately
represented in each of the three identified college financing strategies (‘self-support,’ ‘parental
support’, and ‘balanced support’). There were no significant differences in the distribution of
Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders that attended college in-state versus out-of-state.

164
Significant differences (p<0.001) exist in the college financing strategies employed by
Latino STEM B.S. degree holders by the highest parental education level. Table 4.20 illustrates
that individuals whose parents did not graduate from high school, or only have a high school
diploma are overrepresented among Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders who employed the
‘self support’ college financing strategy. Latinos whose parents earned a bachelor’s degree or
higher were overrepresented among those who employed the financing strategy of ‘parental
support.’ However, the ‘balanced support’ category saw roughly proportionate distribution of
Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders by highest parental education level.

165
Table 4.20. College Financing Strategies Used by Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree Holders by Demographic Characteristics
College Financing Strategy
Self Support
Parental
Support
Balanced
Support
Total Latinos
Weighted Sample n = 3,892 n = 8,250 n = 8,240 n=61,233
National Origin
Uncorrected χ
2
=121.301 df=6 Mexican American 45.8% 43.9% 50.2% 47.6%
Design-based Puerto Rican 9.2% 10.2% 15.1% 12.6%
F(5.44, 1164.54) = 1.864, p=0.0915 Cuban 9.1% 6.8% 5.2% 6.4%
‘Other’ Latino 35.9% 39.1% 29.5% 33.4%
Non-Traditional Status
Uncorrected χ
2
=1014.366 df=2 Non-Traditionally Aged Student 64.5% 16.6% 25.4% 30.7%
Design-based
F(1.96, 419.93)=44.516, p<0.001
Traditionally Aged Student 35.5% 83.4% 74.6% 69.3%
In-State College Attendance
Uncorrected χ
2
=16.326, df=2 Attended In-State 4-yr College 72.8% 78.5% 77.1% 76.6%
Design-based
F(1.98, 423.23)= 0.612, p=0.5410
Attended Out-of-State 4-yr college 27.2% 21.5% 22.9% 23.4%
Highest Parental Education Level
Uncorrected χ
2
=910.245, df=12 Less than high school 29.8% 4.4% 16.7% 15.9%
Design-based High school diploma or equivalent 26.6% 11.5% 22.0% 20.0%
F(10.32, 2208.35)= 7.668, p<0.001 Some college, vocational, or trade school 21.7% 26.3% 28.5% 26.5%
Bachelor’s degree 11.3% 24.8% 12.7% 15.7%
Master’s degree 6.7% 17.9% 13.6% 13.5%
Professional degree (e.g., JD, MD) 3.6% 7.0% 4.2% 4.8%
Doctorate 0.3% 8.1% 2.4% 3.6%
Notes: Column proportions.
**
May not sum to total due to rounding. Design-based F statistics are presented to account for the complex sample design of the
2003 NSRCG.
Source: Analyses of NSF 2003 National Survey of Recent College Graduates (NSRCG), using final survey weight (WTSURVY).

166

Table 4.21 shows the distribution of Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders using each
of the three college financing strategies by baccalaureate-granting institutional characteristics.
The table illustrates that over 73% of those Latinos who were categorized as ‘self-supporters’
attended public institutions – a disproportionately high share. Similarly, a disproportionately high
share (72.6%) of Latinos using the ‘parental support’ financing strategy graduated from publicly
controlled institutions. Among those Latinos who employed the college financing strategy of
‘balanced support’, 38.5% attended a private college/university; thus, private institution attendees
were overrepresented among the ‘balanced support’ group.
Statistically significant differences (p<0.002) also exist in the college financing strategies
employed by Latinos attending institutions of various types. In terms of Carnegie classification,
just below 27% of ‘self-supporters’ graduated from a Research University, despite the fact that
about 40% of all Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders graduated from these types of
institutions. The proportion of ‘self-supporters’ attending all other institutional types (Doctoral
University, Master’s College/University, Liberal Arts College, and Specialized Institutions) were
higher than the overall proportion of Latino STEM B.S. holders in these institutional types. This
clearly indicates that Latinos who graduated from a Research University were underrepresented
among ‘self supporters,’ while Latinos attending other institutional types were overrepresented
among ‘self supporters.’ Those Latino STEM B.S. holders who earned their degrees from a
Doctoral University, Master’s College/University, Liberal Arts College, or Specialized Institution
were underrepresented in the ‘parental support’ category, while those graduates of a Doctoral
University and Specialized Institutions were slightly underrepresented among those who
employed the ‘balanced support’ category.

167
Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders who graduated from a Hispanic Serving
Institution were overrepresented (p<0.03) among ‘self-supporters,’ and underrepresented among
those employing the ‘parental support’ and ‘balanced support’ college financing strategies. Table
4.21 also shows that there were no significant differences in the college financing strategies
employed by Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders by state.

168
Table 4.21. College Financing Strategies Used by Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree Holders by Baccalaureate-granting
Institutional Characteristics
College Financing Strategy
Self Support
Parental
Support
Balanced
Support
Total Latinos
Weighted Sample n = 3,892 n = 8,250 n = 8,240 n=61,233
Control
Uncorrected χ
2
=108.915 df=2 Public 73.5% 72.6% 61.5% 66.9%
Design-based F(1.95, 414.87)=4.067, p<0.02 Private 26.5% 27.4% 38.5% 33.1%
Carnegie Classification
Uncorrected χ
2
=392.910, df=8 Research University 26.2% 45.8% 42.0% 39.9%
Design-based F(6.08, 1277.53)= 3.742, p<0.002 Doctoral University 16.3% 11.4% 14.1% 13.8%
Master’s College/University 39.1% 33.0% 32.6% 34.0%
Liberal Arts College 13.8% 9.8% 11.4% 11.4%
Specialized Institution 4.6% <1% <1% 0.9%
Hispanic-Serving Institution
Uncorrected χ
2
=86.084, df=2 Hispanic Serving Institution 28.2% 16.1% 18.6% 19.8%
Design-based F(1.93, 413.18)= 3.889, p<0.03 Not a Hispanic Serving Institution 71.7% 83.9% 81.4% 80.2%
State
Uncorrected χ
2
=181.265, df=10 California 37.1% 34.3% 32.7% 34.0%
Design-based F(9.04, 1935.08)= 1.583, p=0.1143 Florida 10.9% 10.4% 8.9% 9.7%
Illinois 2.7% 2.4% 4.2% 3.4%
New York 12.1% 5.8% 12.9% 10.8%
Texas 5.6% 16.7% 11.5% 11.8%
Other State 31.5% 30.4% 29.7% 30.3%
Notes: Column proportions.
**
May not sum to total due to rounding. Design-based F statistics are presented to account for the complex sample design of the
2003 NSRCG.
Source: Analyses of NSF 2003 National Survey of Recent College Graduates (NSRCG), using final survey weight (WTSURVY).

169
The Effect of Indebtedness on Graduate School Enrollment among Latino STEM
Bachelor’s Degree Holders
The final question addressed in the present study pertains to the effect of indebtedness on
graduate school enrollment among Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders. As described in the
previous chapter, this question was addressed using two analytical methods: logistic regression
and propensity score matching (PSM). Findings using these two methods are presented and
compared below.
Results of Logistic Regression Analyses
Tables 4.22 through 4.24 present the results of two design-based logistic models of
graduate school enrollment. In the first model, I controlled for seven of the eight, dichotomous
financial aid indicator variables (e.g., scholarships/grants, earnings, work study, etc.) as well as
various individual-level characteristics and social, economic, financial aid policy, and
institutional-level contextual variables in order to understand the effect of high debt and low debt
on graduate school enrollment, relative to no debt. The eighth dichotomous financial aid variable,
loans (1=Yes, 0=No) was dropped from the model due to collinearity. In the second model, in
addition to individual-level and other larger contextual variables, I included the latent college
financing strategies (i.e., self-support, parental support, and balanced support) in lieu of the eight
manifest financial aid variables. This second model allowed for the determination of the effect of
high debt and low debt on graduate school enrollment, relative to no debt, controlling for the
college financing strategy and other relevant factors.
Results from the first logistic regression model, which included the financial aid indicator
variables, reveal that controlling for all other variables of interest (listed in Table 4.23), Latinos
who completed the STEM bachelor’s degree with a low relative level of indebtedness, i.e., low
debt, were 8% (marginal effect = −0.110, p<0.05) less likely to attend graduate school relative to

170
those Latino students who graduated with no student loan debt. The first model does not indicate
that Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders graduating with a high relative level of indebtedness,
i.e., high debt, experience a change in probability of enrolling in graduate school relative Latinos
who did not borrow to finance college. The full model results using the eight financial aid
indicator variables are shown in Table 4.23. An F-adjusted mean residual goodness-of-fit test
applied to the design-based logistic regression model using the Stata module svylogitgof (Archer,
Lemeshow & Hosmer, 2007) suggested no evidence of lack of fit (p=0.407).

Table 4.22. Estimates of Average Treatment Effect of Relative Indebtedness on Graduate
School Enrollment, for Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree Recipients, Using Logistic
Regression
(1) (2)
Logistic Regression Model with
Financial Aid Indicator Variables
Logistic Regression Model with
Latent Financing Strategy Variables
Relative Level of Indebtedness
(Reference is ‘No Debt’)
Marginal Effect S.E.
†
Marginal Effect S.E.
†

High Debt − 0.095

0.275
*
− 0.080 0.299
Low Debt − 0.110

0.217
*
− 0.096 0.242
Notes: *** p<0.001/k, ** p<0.01/k, * p<0.05/k, where k is the number of comparison categories for the Bonferroni
adjustment. †robust standard errors of the beta coefficients (not shown) which take into account the clustered (by
undergraduate institution) and stratified (by race/ethnicity, gender, and field of study) sample design of the NSRCG.
Source: Analyses of the 2003 NSF NSRCG, using final survey weight (WTSURVY).

Table 4.22 indicates that the second logistic regression model, in which the latent college
financing strategy variables were included, does not indicate that low or high levels of
indebtedness result in a change in the probability of attending graduate school among Latino
STEM bachelor’s degree holders. Full model results for the second logistic regression model are
listed in Table 4.24. An F-adjusted mean residual goodness-of-fit test applied to the design-based
logistic regression model using the Stata module svylogitgof (Archer, Lemeshow & Hosmer,
2007) suggested no evidence of lack of fit (p=0.335).

171
Table 4.23. Logistic Regression Model of Graduate School Enrollment including Financial
Aid Indicator Variables for Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree Holders
Marginal Effect S.E.†
Social, Economic and Policy Contextual Variables

State

California −0.066 0.205
***
Florida 0.033 0.290
***

Illinois −0.131 0.507
***

New York −0.012 0.331
***

Texas −0.060 0.361
***

Other State (reference)
National Origin
Mexican American 0.032 0.193
***

Puerto Rican −0.023 0.294
***

Cuban 0.026 0.387
***

‘Other’ Latino (reference)
Gender
Female −0.025 0.182
***

Male (reference)
Field of Study
Computer Science −0.129 0.235
***

Mathematics −0.040 0.336
***

Biological, agricultural, and environmental science 0.249 0.329
***

Physical Science 0.318 0.485
***

Engineering 0.141 0.259
***

Social Science 0.169 0.263
***

Science & Engineering-related (reference)
Higher Education Financial Aid Contextual Variables
Forms of Financial Aid

Work Study −0.009 0.183
***

Did not receive Work Study (reference)
Earnings −0.032 0.187
***

Did not use Earnings to finance college (reference)
Parental/Familial Support (not to be repaid) −0.107 0.158
***

Did not receive Parental/Familial Support (reference)
Scholarships and/or Grants 0.032 0.192
***

Did not receive Scholarships and/or Grants (reference)
Parental/Familial Loans 0.008 0.296
***

Did not receive Parental/Familial Loan (reference)
Employer Support 0.053 0.318
***

Did not receive Employer Support to finance college (reference)
Other Source −0.060 0.589
***

Did not receive financing help from another source (reference)
Relative Debt Level
High Debt −0.095 0.275
***

Low Debt −0.110 0.217
***

No Debt (reference)
B.S.-granting Institutional Contextual Variables
Control
Private −0.016 0.219
***

Public (reference)
Hispanic Serving Institution
HSI −0.060 0.237
***

Non-HSI (reference)

172
Table 4.23, Continued
Marginal Effect S.E.†
Individual-Level Characteristics
Associate Degree
Associate Degree Holder 0.057 0.236
***

Non-Associate Degree Holder (reference)
Non-Traditional Student Status
Non-Traditionally Aged Student −0.089 0.206
***

Traditionally Aged Student (reference)
Undergraduate GPA
3.25 −3.74 (About half A’s/half B’s) −0.128 0.260
***

2.75 −3.24 (Mostly B’s) −0.227 0.255
***

Less than 2.75 −0.232 0.327
***

3.75 −4.00, Mostly A’s (reference)
Notes: *** p<0.001/k, ** p<0.01/k, * p<0.05/k, where k is the number of comparison categories. † Robust standard
errors of the beta coefficients (not shown) which take into account the clustered (by undergraduate institution) and
stratified (by race/ethnicity, gender, and field of study) sample design of the NSRCG.
Source: Analyses of the 2003 NSF NSRCG, using final survey weight (WTSURVY).

173
Table 4.24. Logistic Regression Model of Graduate School Enrollment including Latent
College Financing Strategies, for Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree Holders
Marginal Effect S.E.†
Social, Economic and Policy Contextual Variables

State

California − 0.063

0.214
***
Florida 0.039 0.284
***

Illinois − 0.128 0.519
***

New York − 0.002 0.336
***

Texas − 0.053 0.359
***

Other State (reference)
National Origin
Mexican American 0.034 0.200
***

Puerto Rican − 0.025 0.292
***

Cuban 0.019 0.391
***

‘Other’ Latino (reference)
Gender
Female −0.017 0.174
***

Male (reference)
Field of Study
Computer Science − 0.140 0.236
***

Mathematics − 0.048 0.337
***

Biological, agricultural, and environmental science 0.258 0.325
***

Physical Science 0.315 0.476
***

Engineering 0.147 0.264
***

Social Science 0.174 0.269
***

Science & Engineering-related (reference)
Higher Education Financial Aid Contextual Variables
College Financing Strategy

Self Supported 0.092 0.250
***

Parental Supported −0.041 0.237
***

Balanced Supported (reference)
Relative Debt Level
High Debt −0.080 0.299
***

Low Debt −0.096 0.242
***

No Debt (reference)
B.S.-granting Institutional Contextual Variables
Control
Private −0.014 0.205
***

Public (reference)
Hispanic Serving Institution
HSI −0.06 0.246
***

Non-HSI (reference)
Individual-Level Characteristics
Associate Degree
Associate Degree Holder 0.055 0.235
***

Non-Associate Degree Holder (reference)
Non-Traditional Student Status
Non-Traditionally Aged Student −0.084 0.204
***

Traditionally Aged Student (reference)

174
Table 4.24, Continued
Marginal Effect S.E.†
Undergraduate GPA
3.25-3.50 (A’s and B’s) −0.125 0.261
***

2.75-3.25 (Mostly B’s) −0.228 0.262
***

Less than 2.75 −0.233 0.325
***

3.75 or higher, Mostly A’s (reference)
Notes: *** p<0.001/k, ** p<0.01/k, * p<0.05/k, where k is the number of comparison categories. † Robust standard
errors of the beta coefficients (not shown) which take into account the clustered (by undergraduate institution) and
stratified (by race/ethnicity, gender, and field of study) sample design of the NSRCG. Source: Analyses of the 2003
NSF NSRCG, using final survey weight (WTSURVY).

As explained the previous chapter, the above logistic regression parameter estimates are
potentially biased due to endogeneity, i.e., self-selection bias. Thus, in order to check for biased
estimates of treatment effects, I used the method of propensity score matching to determine the
effect of low debt and high debt on graduate school enrollment. The results of the PSM analysis
are presented below.
Results of Propensity Score Matching Analysis
Propensity score matching involves three distinct steps: (1) the calculation of propensity
scores, that is, the predicted probability of undergoing the treatment(s) of interest; (2) the creation
of a counterfactual framework by matching untreated and treated cases with the same, or similar
propensity scores; and (3) the calculation of treatment effects, i.e., the average treatment effect
(ATE), the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT), and the average treatment effect on the
untreated (ATU).
Propensity scores. In this section, I describe the constrained multinomial probit
regression model used to generate the predicted probabilities of borrowing at the low debt level
and the high debt level. These predicted probabilities were then used as propensity scores.
Table 4.25 illustrates that among Latinos, being a non-traditionally aged student
increased the probability (marginal effect = 0.080, p<0.01) of having ‘low debt’. Earning an
associate degree decreased the likelihood (marginal effect = –0.152, p<0.01) of having ‘low

175
debt’. Latinos who had a parent with a graduate degree of any type had a lower probability
(marginal effect = –0.178, p<0.01) of borrowing at a low relative debt level.
Table 4.25 also reveals that gender and non-traditional student status have statistically
significant effects on the probability of borrowing at a high level among Latinos who earned a
STEM bachelor’s degree. Being female negatively influences the probability (marginal effect = –
0.043, p<0.05) of having a high relative debt level among Latinos, while being a non-traditional
student increases the probability (marginal effect = 0.061, p<0.01) of finishing college with a
high cumulative relative debt level.

176

Table 4.25. Constrained Multinomial Probit Model of Relative Indebtedness (by Level) for Latino STEM
Bachelor’s Degree Holders
Low Relative Debt High Relative Debt
Marginal Effect S.E.† Marginal Effect S.E.†
Social, Economic and Policy Contextual Variables

State

California 0.052 0.224
***
0.022 0.224
***

Florida 0.049 0.296
***
0.021 0.296
***

Illinois 0.031 0.481
***
0.013 0.481
***

New York 0.079 0.274
***
0.033 0.274
***

Texas 0.074 0.289
***
0.032 0.289
***

Other State (reference)

National Origin
Mexican American 0.046 0.193
***
0.044 0.224
***

Puerto Rican 0.031 0.299
***
0.045 0.317
***

Cuban −0.132 0.309
***
0.038 0.311
***

‘Other’ Latino (reference)
Gender
Female −0.038 0.154
***
−0.043 0.185
***

Male (reference)
Highest Parental Education Level
Less than High School −0.095 0.314
***
0.085 0.326
***

High School Diploma or equivalent −0.004 0.234
***
0.089 0.249
***

Some College, Trade School, or Vocational −0.110 0.202
***
0.121 0.231
***

Graduate Degree (Master’s, Professional, or Doctorate) −0.178 0.222
***
−0.002 0.224
***
Bachelor’s Degree (reference)
In-State College Attendance
Attended college in-state 0.114 0.234
***
−0.014 0.251
***

Attended college out-of-state (reference)

177
Table 4.25, Continued
Low Relative Debt High Relative Debt
Marginal Effect S.E.† Marginal Effect S.E.†
Social, Economic and Policy Contextual Variables
(cont’d)

Field of Study
Computer Science −0.008 0.274
***
0.101 0.281
***

Mathematics −0.074 0.316
***
0.028 0.293
***

Biological, agricultural, and environmental science 0.085 0.311
***
−0.002 0.318
***

Physical Science −0.028 0.390
***
0.037 0.387
***

Engineering 0.008 0.258
***
−0.008 0.247
***

Social Science 0.072 0.281
***
−0.038 0.245
***

Science & Engineering-related (reference)
B.S.-granting Institutional Contextual Variables
Control
Private 0.152 0.442
***
0.064 0.442
***

Public (reference)
Tuition
Tuition (Dollars) −0.000001 0.000022
***
−0.000001 0.000023
***

Borrowing Rate
Percent of Undergraduates who Borrow 0.002 0.005
***
0.001 0.005
***

Carnegie Classification
Research University 0.134 0.995
***
0.056 0.995
***

Doctoral University 0.168 1.007
***
0.074 1.007
***

Master’s College/University 0.002 1.029
***
0.001 1.029
***

Liberal Arts 0.055 1.028
***
0.023 1.028
***

Other (reference)
Selectivity
Less Competitive −0.087 0.350
***
−0.035 0.350
***

Competitive 0.018 0.352
***
0.007 0.352
***

Competitive Plus 0.167 0.453
***
0.075 0.453
***

Very Competitive −0.094 0.359
***
−0.038 0.359
***

Very Competitive Plus 0.132 0.507
***
0.058 0.507
***

Highly Competitive −0.066 0.385
***
−0.027 0.385
***

Highly Competitive Plus 0.168 0.561
***
0.075 0.561
***

Most Competitive −0.0002 0.419
***
−0.0001 0.419
***

Special −0.181 0.467
***
−0.070 0.467
***

Non-Competitive (reference)
**

178
Table 4.25, Continued
Low Relative Debt High Relative Debt
Marginal Effect S.E.† Marginal Effect S.E.†
Individual-Level Characteristics
Associate Degree
Associate Degree Holder −0.152 0.212
***
0.012 0.235
***

Non-Associate Degree Holder (reference)
Non-Traditional Student Status
Non-Traditionally Aged Student 0.080 0.162
***
0.061 0.204
***

Traditionally Aged Student (reference)

Wald χ
2
138.26
Notes: *** p<0.001/k, ** p<0.01/k, * p<0.05/k, where k is the number of comparison categories. † Robust standard errors of the beta coefficients (not shown)
which take into account the clustered (by undergraduate institution) and stratified (by race/ethnicity, gender, and field of study) sample design of the NSRCG.
Source: Analyses of the 2003 NSF NSRCG, using final survey weight (WTSURVY).

179
As stated above, the predicted probabilities of having low debt and high debt generated
by the constrained multinomial probit model were used as propensity scores. Tables 4.26 and
4.27 show the cumulative distributions of propensity scores for low debt and high debt. These
tables illustrate that many non-borrowers (i.e., those with no debt) have similar propensity scores
to those Latinos who borrowed at a low relative level and high relative level. Box plots (Figure
4.2 and Figure 4.3) illustrate this overlap in propensity scores, or, common support area, of the
treated and untreated groups. Within the respective common support areas, borrowers with high
relative debt and low relative debt (treated cases) and non-borrowers (untreated cases) were
matched on the propensity scores and the differences in graduate school enrollment between the
treated and untreated cases were interpreted as the treatment effect by relative level of
indebtedness.

180
Table 4.26. Cumulative Distribution of Estimated Propensity Scores for Borrowing at a
Low Relative Debt Level (Derived from Constrained Multinomial Probit Regression Model
in Table 4.25)
Low Relative Debt No Debt
Propensity Score Proportion Sample Size Proportion Sample Size
0.10 0.000 0

0.004 1
0.12 0.002 1

0.004 1
0.14 0.004 2

0.004 1
0.15 0.004 2

0.007 2
0.16 0.005 3

0.011 3
0.17 0.005 3

0.015 4
0.18 0.011 6

0.015 4
0.19 0.011 6

0.022 6
0.20 0.013 7

0.026 7
0.21 0.016 9

0.033 9
0.22 0.016 9

0.037 10
0.23 0.016 9

0.055 15
0.24 0.018 10

0.063 17
0.25 0.020 11

0.066 18
0.26 0.026 14

0.066 18
0.27 0.029 16

0.081 22
0.28 0.029 16

0.100 27
0.29 0.036 20

0.107 29
0.30 0.044 24

0.129 35
0.31 0.051 28

0.151 41
0.32 0.053 29

0.162 44
0.33 0.071 39

0.173 47
0.34 0.077 42

0.188 51
0.35 0.088 48

0.229 62
0.36 0.102 56

0.255 69
0.37 0.106 58

0.280 76
0.38 0.128 70

0.303 82
0.39 0.148 81

0.328 89
0.40 0.173 95

0.339 92
0.41 0.182 100

0.369 100
0.42 0.192 105

0.387 105
0.43 0.219 120

0.410 111
0.44 0.239 131

0.424 115
0.45 0.257 141

0.450 122
0.46 0.281 154

0.472 128
0.47 0.299 164

0.509 138
0.48 0.330 181

0.546 148
0.49 0.367 201

0.583 158
0.50 0.407 223

0.624 169
0.51 0.432 237

0.661 179

181
Table 4.26, Continued
Low Relative Debt No Debt
Propensity Score Proportion Sample Size Proportion Sample Size
0.52 0.456 250

0.675 183
0.53 0.485 266

0.697 189
0.54 0.520 285

0.712 193
0.55 0.544 298

0.734 199
0.56 0.586 321

0.756 205
0.57 0.626 343

0.779 211
0.58 0.651 357

0.808 219
0.59 0.682 374

0.830 225
0.60 0.697 382

0.867 235
0.61 0.721 395

0.878 238
0.62 0.746 409

0.897 243
0.63 0.776 425

0.919 249
0.64 0.797 437

0.934 253
0.65 0.827 453

0.945 256
0.66 0.845 463

0.963 261
0.67 0.869 476

0.970 263
0.68 0.903 495

0.978 265
0.69 0.914 501

0.982 266
0.70 0.925 507

0.989 268
0.71 0.940 515

0.989 268
0.72 0.943 517

0.989 268
0.73 0.956 524

0.996 270
0.74 0.971 532

0.996 270
0.75 0.982 538

0.996 270
0.76 0.989 542

0.996 270
0.77 0.996 546

1.000 271
0.79 0.998 547

1.000 271
0.80 1.000 548

1.000 271
Source: Analyses of the 2003 NSF NSRCG, using propensity scores generated from a constrained multinomial probit
model and weighted data (WTSURVY).

182
Table 4.27. Cumulative Distribution of Estimated Propensity Scores for Borrowing at a
High Relative Debt Level (Derived from Constrained Multinomial Probit Regression Model
in Table 4.25)
High Relative Debt No Debt
Propensity Score Proportion Sample Size Proportion Sample Size
0.03
0.004 1

0.004 1
0.04
0.004 1

0.007 2
0.05
0.008 2

0.022 6
0.06
0.016 4

0.044 12
0.07
0.016 4

0.070 19
0.08
0.016 4

0.092 25
0.09
0.033 8

0.137 37
0.10
0.049 12

0.166 45
0.11
0.061 15

0.214 58
0.12
0.065 16

0.255 69
0.13
0.081 20

0.314 85
0.14
0.122 30

0.362 98
0.15
0.167 41

0.410 111
0.16
0.195 48

0.465 126
0.17
0.224 55

0.491 133
0.18
0.264 65

0.535 145
0.19
0.341 84

0.576 156
0.20
0.411 101

0.627 170
0.21
0.459 113

0.649 176
0.22
0.484 119

0.683 185
0.23
0.520 128

0.738 200
0.24
0.565 139

0.775 210
0.25
0.614 151

0.819 222
0.26
0.650 160

0.841 228
0.27
0.683 168

0.863 234
0.28
0.711 175

0.893 242
0.29
0.728 179

0.926 251
0.30
0.764 188

0.934 253
0.31
0.801 197

0.945 256
0.32
0.821 202

0.948 257
0.33
0.850 209

0.967 262
0.34
0.882 217

0.970 263
0.35
0.902 222

0.974 264
0.36
0.911 224

0.978 265
0.37
0.915 225

0.982 266
0.38
0.923 227

0.989 268
0.39
0.943 232

0.989 268
0.40
0.955 235

0.993 269
0.41
0.959 236

0.996 270
0.42
0.972 239

1.000 271

183
Table 4.27, Continued
High Relative Debt No Debt
Propensity Score Proportion Sample Size Proportion Sample Size
0.43
0.976 240

1.000 271
0.44
0.980 241

1.000 271
0.45
0.980 241

1.000 271
0.46
0.980 241

1.000 271
0.47
0.984 242

1.000 271
0.48
0.988 243

1.000 271
0.49
0.992 244

1.000 271
0.50
0.992 244

1.000 271
0.51
1.000 246

1.000 271
Source: Analyses of the 2003 NSF NSRCG, using propensity scores generated from a constrained multinomial probit
model and weighted data (WTSURVY).

184
Figure 4.2. Estimated Propensity Scores of Borrowing at a Low Relative Debt Level, by
Treatment

low debt no debt
.
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
.

Source: Analyses of the 2003 NSF NSRCG, using propensity scores generated from a constrained multinomial probit
model and weighted data (WTSURVY).

No Debt (Untreated Group) Low Relative Debt (Treated Group)
Propensity to Borrow at a Low Relative Debt Level

185

Figure 4.3. Estimated Propensity Scores of Borrowing at a High Relative Debt Level, by
Treatment
high debt no debt
.
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
.

Source: Analyses of the 2003 NSF NSRCG, using propensity scores generated from a constrained multinomial probit
model and weighted data (WTSURVY).
No Debt (Untreated Group) High Relative Debt (Treated Group)
Propensity to Borrow at a High Relative Debt Level

186
Treatment effects derived from Propensity Score Matching. The average treatment effect
(ATE), treatment effect on the treated (ATT), and treatment effect on the untreated (ATU)
resulting from the PSM analysis using the kernel matching technique (bandwidth = 0.06) are
shown in Table 4.28. The standard errors were calculated using bootstrap repetition. The
percentage of cases that were matched, i.e., fell within the common support area, are also listed.

Table 4.28. Estimates of the Average Treatment Effect (ATE), Average Treatment on the
Treated (ATT), and Average Treatment on the Untreated (ATU) Effect of Relative Level of
Indebtedness (Low, High) on 2000-01/2001-02 STEM Bachelor’s Degree Recipients
Graduate School Enrollment, Based on Matching of Propensity Scores Derived from the
Multinomial Probit Model in Table 4.25
Low Relative Debt High Relative Debt
ATE ATT ATU ATE ATT ATU
Kernel Matching Estimates −0.141
***
−0.138
***
−0.156
***
−0.185
***
−0.171
****
−0.198
***
S.E. 0.0403
*
0.0370
*
0.0351
*
0.0507
*
0.0445
*
0.0383
*

Percent of Cases Matched 100
*
99.2
Notes: *** p<0.001, ** p<0.01, * p<0.05. Standard errors were generated using bootstrap replications.
Source: Analyses of the 2003 NSF NSRCG, using propensity scores generated from a multinomial probit model and
weighted data (WTSURVY).

The results illustrate that the effect of indebtedness on graduate school enrollment is
statistically significant and negative for both low levels of debt and high levels of debt. As shown
in Table 4.28, the size of the ATT effect of borrowing at a low level is smaller than the estimate
of the ATE. This indicates that among Latinos who did borrow at a low level, the negative effect
of that low relative debt burden on the likelihood of enrolling graduate school (change in
probability = –13.8%) is slightly smaller than the effect experienced by the entire sample
(change in probability = –14.1%). This suggests that Latino STEM B.S. holders who have a
higher propensity of borrowing at a low level experience a smaller ‘penalty’ on the chances of
enrolling in graduate school than those with a lower propensity to borrow at a low level. The size
of the ATU effect of borrowing at a low level is larger than the estimated average treatment
effect. This demonstrates that if those Latinos who did not borrow at all had borrowed at a low

187
level, they would have experienced a larger negative effect on their probability of enrolling in
graduate school (change in probability = –15.6%). This implies that the ‘penalty’ on the chances
of enrolling in graduate school is greater for Latinos with a low propensity to have a low relative
debt burden.
For relatively high levels of debt, the size of the ATT effect is smaller than the estimate
of the ATE. This means that Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders who did borrow at a high
level experienced a smaller negative effect of that high relative debt burden (change in probability
= –17.1%) on their likelihood of enrolling in graduate school than that experienced by the entire
sample (change in probability = –18.5%). Further, the ATT effect suggests that Latinos with a
higher propensity to borrow at a high level experience a smaller ‘penalty’ than those with a lower
propensity to graduate with high relative debt. The ATU effect of borrowing at a high relative
debt level exceeds the ATE. This indicates that if those Latinos who did not borrow at all had a
high relative level of indebtedness, they would have experienced a larger negative effect
(–19.8%) on their probability of enrolling in graduate school than that of the entire sample. This
result implies that the negative effects of high relative debt are higher for those Latinos with
lower chances of borrowing at a high level.
Comparison of Propensity Score Matching and Logistic Regression treatment effect
estimates. Treatment effect estimates from the propensity score matching analysis differ with
those obtained through the logistic regression analyses shown in Table 4.22. The logistic
regression analyses revealed that a low relative level of indebtedness has a statistically significant
negative average treatment effect (ATE) [–11% (–0.110, p<0.05)] on the probability of graduate
school enrollment when financial aid indicator variables were used. The estimated ATE of –14%
(–0.141, p<0.001), ATT effect of –14% (–0.138, p<0.001), and ATU effect of –16% (–0.156,
p<0.001) derived from the propensity score matching are larger than the logistic regression

188
estimate
17
. This indicates that the calculated marginal effect size from the logistic regression
model using financial aid indicator variables has an overall bias
18
of +0.031 (–0.110–(–0.141))
and reveals a self-selection bias of +0.028 (–0.110–(–0.138)).
Contrary to the logistic regression model in Table 4.22 which indicated that the effect of
low debt on graduate school enrollment was not statistically significant when latent college
financing strategy variables (i.e., self-supported, parentally-supported, balanced-supported) were
used in the model, the propensity score matching found highly significant negative effects of low
debt on graduate school enrollment. Further, the logistic regression model results in Table 4.22
showed that high debt was not found to have a statistically significant relationship with graduate
school enrollment in either model (with financial aid indicator variables or latent financing
strategy variables). This stands in contrast to the statistically significant negative effects of high
debt on the probability of enrolling in graduate school found via the propensity score matching
analysis. The inconsistencies between the logistic regression models and the results of the
propensity score matching underscore previous assertions by researchers (Attewell, Lavin,
Domina & Levey, 2006; Ichino, Mealli, & Nannicini, 2006; Rosenbaum, 1984; Titus, 2007) that
logistic regression models do not appropriately correct for self-selection bias, resulting in biased
parameter estimates.
Sensitivity Analyses
While propensity score matching is widely preferred over standard regression techniques
(Titus, 2007), PSM is not an infallible method of analysis. There are several pitfalls that can

17
In order to determine if the differences in treatment effect estimates using logistic regression and propensity score
matching were due to factors related to weighting, the logistic regression was run without weights as a sensitivity
analysis. The marginal effect estimates for the effect of low relative debt and high relative debt on graduate school
enrollment derived from this sensitivity analysis were statistically significant and negative (-0.11 and -0.14,
respectively), but were still smaller in magnitude than the PSM treatment effect estimates.

18
Bias estimates cannot account for the possibility of selection on “unobservables”.

189
potentially undermine the validity of PSM results. Two such pitfalls are the quality of the model
used to predict propensity scores, and unobserved variables that might affect the propensity score
estimates and the outcome of interest. Below, I discuss two types of sensitivity analyses I
conducted to bolster the validity of my findings.
Testing the sensitivity of estimated treatment effects to modeled propensity scores. In
order to establish the soundness PSM results, I tested the sensitivity of treatment effect estimates
to the modeled propensity scores. By changing the observed covariates included in the
constrained multinomial probit model used to estimate the propensity scores (i.e. excluding
selected covariates from the original model), I was able to determine the change in treatment
effects caused by these alterations. Other researchers using propensity score matching (Titus,
personal communication, 1/31/08) have used this technique to establish the validity of their
results.
Table 4.29 shows treatment effect estimates (ATT, ATU, and ATE) resulting from the
propensity score calculations using four different constrained multinomial probit models (Models
1-4) to predict the probability of treatment (low debt, high debt). The covariates removed from
Model 1 through Model 4 are indicated in the second column of the table. The resulting predicted
probabilities from each model were interpreted as propensity scores and treatment effects were
calculated using kernel matching techniques within the Stata module PSMATCH2 (Leuven &
Sianesi, 2003). Results from the final model are also shown in the table for comparison purposes.

190
Table 4.29. Estimates of the Treatment Effects of Relative Level of Indebtedness on
Graduate School Enrollment
Low Relative Debt High Relative Debt

Removed
Covariates
ATE ATT ATU ATE ATT ATU
Model 1 State −0.154
***
−0.150
***
−0.161
***
−0.182
***
−0.162
****
−0.200
***
Model 2 Field of Study −0.148
***
−0.146
***
−0.154
***
−0.174
***
−0.158
****
−0.189
***
Model 3 National Origin −0.155
***
−0.152
***
−0.162
***
−0.184
***
−0.165
****
−0.201
***
Model 4
Tuition and Percent
Borrowers at B.S.-
granting Institution
−0.151
***
−0.147
***
−0.160
***
−0.186
***
−0.168
****
−0.203
***
Final
Model

−0.141
***
−0.134
***
−0.156
***
−0.185
***
−0.171
****
−0.198
***
Notes: *** p<0.001, ** p<0.01, * p<0.05.
Source: Analyses of the 2003 NSF NSRCG, using propensity scores generated from a multinomial probit model and
weighted data (WTSURVY).

As the table illustrates, the removal of covariates from the probit model used to predict
propensity of incurring high and low levels of debt alters the treatment effect estimates derived
from PSM. However the direction of the effect remains negative across all models, and range of
the treatment effect estimates in Models 1-4 lies within one standard error of the final model’s
treatment effect estimates.
Testing the robustness of treatment effect estimates against violations of the Conditional
Independence Assumption. While PSM is capable of correcting for self-selection biases, it is
possible that unobserved characteristics or “unobservables” could simultaneously impact the
outcome variable of interest (i.e., graduate school enrollment) and the propensity score (i.e.,
predicted probability of participating in a loan program at a given level), constituting a violation
of the Conditional Independence Assumption (Caliendo & Kopeinig, 2005). The presence of such
an unobserved determinant might create a hidden bias against which estimates of the treatment
effects derived from PSM are not robust (Becker & Caliendo, 2007; Rosenbaum, 2002)
undermining the validity of the PSM model.
Though the conditional independence assumption cannot be directly tested (Caliendo &
Kopeinig, 2005; Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1983), it is possible to test the robustness of the treatment

191
effect estimates against hidden biases introduced by unobserved variables using the bounding
approach first proposed by Rosenbaum (2002). Sensitivity analysis using the bounding approach
tests how strongly ‘unobservables’ could simultaneously influence the propensity to participate in
treatment and the outcome variable without undermining the results of the propensity score
matching analysis. For example, if two individuals had identical observed covariates (e.g.,
national origin, gender, SES), they would have the same probability of receiving treatment (e.g.,
borrowing at a high level), and thus, the same propensity score. However, there could be some
unobserved factor that altered the probability of borrowing at a high level so that the true
propensity scores of the individuals are in fact different. The Stata module, MHBOUNDS
(Becker & Caliendo, 2007), introduces different levels of bias that could be caused by unobserved
variables and tests how large the hidden bias would have to be to render the PSM results
insignificant. I used the MHBOUNDS module to test the robustness of the propensity score
matching treatment effect estimates against unobserved variables.
In the table below (Table 4.30), Γ represents the odds of differential assignment due to
unobserved factors. Thus, Γ=1 corresponds to the assumption of no hidden bias, Γ=1.5 assumes a
hidden biases that affects the odds ratio of treatment assignment to differ between the treatment
and comparison groups by 1.5. The second and third columns of the table contain the significance
level (p-value) of the low debt and high debt treatment effect under the assumption of the
specified bias level ( Γ), respectively. Bolded p-values are not significant.
The results of the sensitivity analysis testing the robustness of the treatment effect
estimates against bias due to selection on ‘unobservables’ indicate that for certain levels of Γ, the
treatment effect estimates become insignificant. More specifically, hidden biases that affect the
odds of selection into the low debt category by 1.5 to 2.4 render the results insignificant. For
Γ=2.5 or higher, the low debt treatment effect becomes significant again. The treatment effects of

192
high debt become insignificant for hidden biases that affect the odds of selection into the high
debt category by 1.4-2.6. For Γ=2.7 or higher, the high debt treatment effect is again significant.
While the results of the sensitivity analysis procedure described above cannot directly test
the conditional independence assumption, they indicate that the model is somewhat sensitive to
selection on ‘unobservables’ and that careful interpretations of the PSM-derived treatment effects
should be made.

Table 4.30. Results of Mantel-Haenszel Bounds Sensitivity Analysis
Low Relative Debt Treatment High Relative Debt Treatment
Γ (Assumed Bias Level) p-value of Treatment Effect Estimate p-value of Treatment Effect Estimate
1 <.0001 .0003
1.1 .0003 .0020
1.2 .0023 .0079
1.3 .0103 .0237
1.4 .0336 .0566
1.5 .0836 .1125
1.6 .1682 .1929
1.7 .2854 .2939
1.8 .4225 .4068
1.9 .4992 .5216
2 .3687 .4437
2.1 .2571 .3436
2.2 .1699 .2573
2.3 .1068 .1868
2.4 .0642 .1319
2.5 .0370 .0907
2.6 .0206 .0610
2.7 .0111 .0401
2.8 .0058 .0259
2.9 .0029 .0164
3 .0015 .0103
3.1 .0007 .0063
3.2 .0003 .0401
3.3 .0002 .0023
3.4 .0001 .0014
3.5 <.0001 .0008
3.6 <.0001 .0004
3.7 <.0001 .0002
3.8 <.0001 .0002
3.9 <.0001 .0001
4 <.0001 .0001
Source: Analyses of the 2003 NSF NSRCG, using propensity scores generated from a multinomial probit model and
weighted data (WTSURVY).

193

Summary of Key Findings

The key findings of this study are summarized below.

Institutional Pathways to STEM for Latinos

• Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders who earned an associate degree prior to
transferring to a four-year institution graduated from less selective, publicly-controlled,
non-research Hispanic-serving colleges and universities more commonly than non-
associate degree earners.
• Clear state-determined patterns existed in the pathways followed by Latino STEM
bachelor’s degree holders, with community colleges playing a large role in Florida,
California and New York, and HSIs serving as a large pathway for Latinos in Texas,
Florida, and California.
• National origin was not a significant factor by which Latinos’ institutional pathways
varied.
• Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders who earned an associate degree were more
commonly non-traditionally aged and first-generation college students than non-associate
degree earners.
• Nearly half of Latino STEM B.S. holders who traversed the community college/HSI or
HSI pathways were first-generation students, compared to 30% of those in the non-HSI
pathway.
• Latinos who graduated from Hispanic-serving Institutions majored in non-social science
STEM fields, i.e., Computer Science/Mathematics; Biological, agricultural, and

194
environmental sciences; Physical Science; and Engineering, in higher proportions than
those who graduated from non-HSIs.

College Financing Strategies of Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree Holders

• Significant differences in borrowing exist by institutional pathway: More than half (52%) of
Latino STEM B.S. holders who followed the CC/HSI pathway did not borrow to finance
college compared to 28%, 24%, and 26% of Latinos in the CC/non-HSI, HSI, and non-HSI
pathways, respectively. Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders in the CC/non-HSI pathway
most commonly accumulated a high relative level of debt compared to students in the other
pathways. Latinos in the HSI and non-HSI pathways most commonly accumulated low
relative levels of debt (53% and 55%, respectively).
• Three major college financing strategies were employed by Latino STEM B.S. degree
holders: ‘self-support,’ ‘parental support,’ and ‘balanced support.’
o ‘Self-supporting’ Latino STEM B.S. degree holders tended to be non-
traditionally aged, first-generation college students, and constituted nearly half of
all Latinos who followed the CC/HSI institutional pathway.
o ‘Parentally supported’ Latino STEM B.S. degree holders tended to be
traditionally aged, had at least one parent with a four-year college degree
(bachelor’s or higher), and did not earn an associate degree. Non-HSIs served as
the largest pathway for ‘parentally supported’ students.
o Latino STEM B.S. degree holders who received ‘balanced support’ were more
likely to be traditionally aged students, had parents with a range of education
levels, and were slightly overrepresented in the HSI pathway.

195
• Mexican American/Chicano, Puerto Rican, Cuban and Latinos of ‘other’ national origin
borrowed at similar rates and employed similar financing strategies.

The Effect of Debt on Graduate School Enrollment
• High and low levels of relative debt negatively affected the likelihood of graduate school
enrollment among Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders. However, the size of the
negative effect of high debt was larger than that of low debt.
• If Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders with low probabilities of incurring student
loan debt had borrowed, they would have experienced a greater negative effect of
borrowing on their chances of graduate school enrollment than those who did borrow.
• Logistic regression techniques underestimated the negative effects of borrowing on
graduate school enrollment among Latino STEM B.S. degree holders.

196
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION

In this chapter I summarize and discuss the key findings of the study, describe the study’s
limitations and discuss directions for future research.
The Importance of Community College Transfer and Hispanic Serving Institutions to
Latino STEM Baccalaureates
Much of the literature on the underrepresentation of Latinos in STEM fields neglects to
consider the ways in which these students typically access postsecondary education, i.e., via
community colleges and Hispanic-serving institutions. Three institutional pathways -- (1)
community college to four-year HSI; (2) community college to four-year non-HSI; and (3) entry
to four year HSI -- were of particular interest to this study given that they are seen as
‘unconventional’ routes to STEM, despite the frequency with which all Latinos employ these
pathways. This investigation revealed that community colleges and four-year HSIs do in fact
serve as institutional pathways for Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders. Nearly one-fifth
(19.8%) of Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders earn associate degrees
19
at community
colleges prior to completing the baccalaureate, and about 20% of Latino STEM bachelor’s degree
holders earn the B.S. degree from HSIs. However, the proportions of Latinos who use the
community college and HSIs as a pathway to the STEM B.S. degree is considerably lower than
that of all Latinos. As stated in the second chapter of this work, more than half of all Latinos
begin their postsecondary education in the community college, and HSIs are responsible for
awarding nearly 40% of all bachelor’s degrees conferred to Latinos.

19
This figure does not include the 42% of Latinos in the sample who attended community college at some point, some
of whom may have earned a year or more of credit.

197
The findings of the present study suggest that these trends are not mirrored in the
population of Latino STEM B.S. degree holders. Instead, community colleges and HSIs, while
playing a role, do not seem to act as large as a pathway for Latino STEM degree holders as these
institutions do for all Latino students. Recognizing that my study employs a particularly narrow
definition of community college attendance due to limitations in the NSRCG data source, even
employing the ‘looser’ definition of attendance as enrollment in a community college at any point
for any reason, Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders attend community college in lower
proportions than all Latino undergraduates (62.0% versus 79.3%) (NCES, 2006). It seems as if,
however common among all Latino students, institutional pathways through community colleges
and Hispanic Serving Institutions remain ‘unconventional’ in the sense that the patterns of access
among Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders differ from those of all Latino students.
My analysis also focused on the ways in which the institutional pathways used by Latino
STEM bachelor’s degree holders varied based on contextual factors identified in the conceptual
framework of this study (Perna, 2006a). Beginning with demographic and higher education policy
environments, the highest levels of context identified in the conceptual framework of this study,
clear trends exist. Hispanic-serving institutions played the largest role in Texas, Florida and
California – the three U.S. states with the largest Latino populations (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006).
Forty percent of Latino STEM B.S. degree holders who attended college in Texas received their
degrees from HSIs, compared to 32% in Florida and about 24% in California. The ‘Hispanic-
Serving’ designation is demographically driven, thus, the relationship between the size and
proportion of a state’s Latino population and the percentage of Latino STEM bachelor’s degree
holders using HSIs as a pathway is not surprising. Further contributing to the relationship
between demographic context and the size of the ‘Hispanic-Serving’ institutional pathway is the
large degree of residential segregation that occurs in these states (Olivas, 2005; Tienda & Nu,

198
2006). Previous research has illustrated that geographic proximity is an important concern among
Latino students and their families (Tornatzky et al., 2003) thus one would expect that proximity
preferences and residential segregation intersect to contribute to the concentration of Latinos in
HSIs (Olivas, 2005; Tienda & Nu, 2006). The findings from this study support this notion as
Latino-intensive states generally had larger HSI pathways (CC/HSI or HSI) than those states with
smaller Latino populations.
Factors within states’ higher education policy context also shaped Latinos’ patterns of
access with regard to the role of the community college in serving as an institutional pathway to
STEM. In the current study I was interested in the extent to which Latino STEM bachelor’s
degree holders earned associate degrees at community colleges prior to attending their
baccalaureate-granting institution. Clear state patterns emerged from my analysis of the data. Half
of Latino STEM B.S. degree holders who graduated from institutions in Florida earned an
associate degree. The numbers were lower in California and New York; in California, 22% of
Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders earned an AA/AS degree and 28% earned AA/AS
degrees in New York. In Texas, the numbers were considerably lower; just 9.5% of Latino STEM
bachelor’s degree holders earned associate degrees from a community college.
These findings are indicative of the differences in these states’ higher education system
structures and policies. As noted in my review of the literature, Florida, California, and New
York have highly articulated, stratified systems of postsecondary education in which community
colleges are intended to act as a means to access four-year institutions. Through systemwide
articulation agreements, Florida, California and New York facilitate the transfer of credits to the
four-year institution for those students who attend community college. California has policies in
place that guarantee transfer admission to a public four-year institution provided that students
successfully complete the necessary requirements. Florida’s 2+2 higher education system goes

199
steps further than both California and New York by providing incentives for students to earn the
associate degree prior to transfer in the form of guaranteed admission for only AA/AS degree
holders. The large number of Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders who earn associate degrees
at community colleges in Florida, California, and New York were able to successfully navigate
the path from the community college to four-year institutions by using the policies and structures
in place. The considerable difference in the proportion of Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders
who earn associate degrees in Florida, California and New York likely results from Florida’s
emphasis on associate degree attainment prior to transfer.
In contrast, Texas’ postsecondary landscape consists of loosely coupled state and regional
university systems, independent colleges and universities, and community colleges. Though many
Texas community colleges have established articulation agreements with a number of four-year
institutions, the state’s higher education governing body only recently began to facilitate the
transfer process through formal structures (Wellman, 2002). Thus, Texas’ nascent transfer
policies do not go nearly as far as those of Florida, California, and New York in terms of paving
the way from the community college to four-year institutions for Latinos in the sciences. This is
certainly borne out by the relatively small percentage of Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders
who graduate from institutions in Texas and earn an associate degree.
I was able to identify key individual characteristics along which the institutional
pathways of Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders differed. In particular, I wanted to
understand the characteristics of Latino students who traversed community college and HSI
pathways to the STEM baccalaureate. The findings from the present study reveal that these
‘unconventional’ pathways to the STEM bachelor’s degree were primarily used by
nontraditionally aged and first generation Latino students. Sixty-three percent of Latino STEM
bachelor’s degree holders who earned an associate degree were non-traditionally aged, i.e., they

200
were 25 years or older at the time of the awarding of the baccalaureate. This overrepresentation is
quite striking considering that 30.7% of all Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders were non-
traditional students. This finding mirrors the patterns observed regarding all Latino students,
wherein non-traditionally aged students are more likely to attend community college.
Parental education was also an important contextual factor associated with Latino STEM
bachelor’s degree holders’ institutional pathways. Nearly 44% of Latino STEM bachelor’s degree
holders who earned an associate degree were first generation college students, compared to 34%
of those STEM B.S. degree holders who did not earn an associate degree. Just below three
quarters of Latino STEM B.S. holders who earned associate degree had parents who did not earn
a bachelor’s degree versus 60% of non-associate degree holders. This indicates that students
whose parents were less familiar with postsecondary education more commonly used the
community college as a pathway to the STEM baccalaureate than those students whose parents
earned at least a bachelor’s degree. Though not a perfect proxy variable, parental education levels
are commonly associated with socioeconomic status and access to various types of capital (e.g.,
economic, social, and cultural).
The findings of this study suggest that Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders that use
community college pathways tend to be more disadvantaged. Previous research on educational
opportunity indicates that accumulated disadvantage acts to limit the ways in which Latinos
access college, resulting in the highly stratified enrollment patterns of these students. The
findings from this study suggest that these patterns also apply to Latinos who earn degrees in
science and related fields. While relatively high proportions of all Latino STEM bachelor’s
degree holders are non-traditionally aged and first generation students, those who earn associate
degree at a community college prior to attending a four-year institution are more likely to possess
these characteristics.

201
Compounding the initial disadvantages that Latino students who attend community
colleges possess, previous research tells us that community college attendance further
disadvantages students in terms of a variety of educational outcomes (Adelman, 2005) though
there is some debate as to whether this applies to Latino students (Melguizo, in press). From a
sociocultural theoretical perspective, one could suggest that because community colleges are
perceived to be lower status institutions, community college attendance limits the acquisition of
various forms of capital, thereby furthering the accumulation of disadvantage. In this study, I
sought to understand whether there were any differences in the characteristics of Latino STEM
B.S. degree holders’ baccalaureate-granting institution by associate degree attainment. My
findings reveal that Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders who earned associate degrees went
on to attend less selective, public non-research institutions. Thirteen percent of associate degree
earners graduate from institutions classified as highly competitive, highly competitive plus, or
most competitive, compared to 35% of non-associate degree earners. Seventeen percent of
associate degree earners attended private four-year institutions, while 37% of non-associate
degree earners did. Just 25% of Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders who earned an associate
degree graduated from research universities, compared with nearly 44% of non-associate degree
earners. Interestingly, associate degree earners graduated from four-year HSIs in greater
proportions than non-associate degree earners (32.1% versus 16.8%). It is possible that
unobserved individual characteristics account for the differences in baccalaureate-granting
institutional characteristics between Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders who earned an
associate and those that did not. However, clear trends exist and it is important to examine the
implications of these trends.
Many educational researchers (Bensimon, 2004; Fry, 2004) have argued for the
importance of gaining access to selective research institutions among Latinos and other students

202
of color. Various studies (Brewer, Eide & Ehrenberg, 1999; Dale & Kruger, 2002; Eide, Brewer,
& Ehrenberg, 1998; Monks, 2000) have shown that there are many educational and economic
benefits to attending selective institutions for low-income and minority students, including
increased chances of enrolling in graduate school and higher earning potential. Further,
attendance at selective research universities is associated with increased opportunity to engage in
scholarly research as an undergraduate, which increases retention, faculty interaction, and
graduate school aspirations among underrepresented students in the sciences (Foertsch,
Alexander, & Penberthy, 1997; Kardash, 2000; Kinkead, 2003; Sabatini, 1997; Seymour, Hunter,
Laursen & Deantoni, 2004). The fact that Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders who earn an
associate degree at a community college are less likely to graduate from highly selective research
universities than non-associate degree earners suggests Latinos who followed the community
college pathway may be missing out on opportunities to engage in research and the associated
benefits.
Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders who earn the AA/AS are also more likely to
graduate from Hispanic-Serving Institutions, which tend to be less selective non-research
institutions. The arguments outlined above suggest that graduating from an HSI would be
disadvantageous because it could deny these students those benefits of attendance at selective
institutions with more research opportunities. However, very little empirical evidence exists
regarding the benefits or detriments of HSI attendance (Contreras, Malcom & Bensimon, 2008).
While other minority serving institutions have been shown to be beneficial to their target
populations, HSIs are not analogous to HBCUs and women’s colleges due the unique,
demographically-driven way in which they earn the ‘Hispanic-serving’ designation.
In order to understand whether HSI attendance is associated with Latino STEM
bachelor’s degree holders’ outcomes, I examined differences in the field of study by institutional

203
pathway. My findings reveal that the field in which Latino STEM B.S. holders earned their
degrees varies based on the pathway that they followed, without controlling for other factors.
Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders who followed the HSI or community college to HSI
pathways earned their degrees in the so-called “hard” sciences in greater proportions than those
Latinos who graduated from non-HSIs. Nearly 65% of Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders
who followed the HSI pathway earned their degrees in “hard sciences,” i.e., computer
science/mathematics; biological, agricultural, and environmental science; physical science;
engineering; and health/medical science. Just 41% of Latinos in the non-HSI pathway earned
their degrees in the “hard sciences.” Among associate degree earners, the proportion of Latinos
who earned the STEM bachelor’s degree in “hard” sciences was lower than that of non-associate
degree earners, but the trend by HSI status remained. Nearly 40% of Latino STEM bachelor’s
degree holders who traversed the community college to HSI pathway earned their degree in a
‘hard science,’ compared to just 30% of those in the community college to non-HSI pathway.
Though the patterns of degree attainment in the various STEM fields discussed above
reflect mere associations, not causal relationships, the findings suggest that there might be
something unique about the institutional environments of HSIs that could lead Latinos to pursue
and succeed in non-social sciences. Previous research on other minority serving institutions
demonstrates that women’s colleges and HBCUs are more effective at facilitating the success of
women and African Americans in the sciences, granting a disproportionately high share of STEM
degrees to their target populations. These previous studies have established clear linkages
between characteristics of the institutional environments and student success in STEM. The
findings of the current study suggest that, in this respect, HSIs could possibly be comparable to
other minority serving institutions. However, this conclusion requires further investigation using
quantitative and qualitative methods.

204
Additional work ought to be done to establish if these patterns remain after controlling
for student characteristics and other relative institutional characteristics. It is not clear from the
methods used in the current study whether the association between HSI attendance and degree
attainment in a “hard” science is indicative of an underlying causal relationship or if there is some
sort of self-selection process occurring. Do HSIs award more degrees to Latinos in the “hard”
sciences due to characteristics of their institutional environments, or are there unobserved factors
that lead those Latino students more apt to pursue and succeed in non-social sciences to self-
select themselves into HSI pathways? Though the answer remains unclear, the findings of the
current study suggest that institutional environment is an important contextual factor to consider
when understanding Latino student outcomes and attainment in particular STEM fields of study.
The final key finding regarding the institutional pathways of Latino STEM bachelor’s
degree holders pertains to the similarities in patterns of access across national origin. Mexican
American, Puerto Rican, Cuban and other Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders earned
associate degrees at community colleges and graduated from Hispanic Serving Institutions at
statistically similar rates. It is possible that the absence of statistically significant differences in
the patterns of access among Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders of various national origins
was due in part to each group’s small sample size and the resulting larger standard errors. Though
national origin did not seem to be a vital factor in this exploration of institutional pathways,
Latinos ought to continue to be studied in a way that accounts for the diversity of this ethnic
group. Questions of intra-group variability should remain central to subsequent studies of Latino
STEM bachelor’s degree holders as national origin remains an important contextual factor
capable of shaping educational opportunity and outcomes.

205
College Financing Strategies and Borrowing among
Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree Holders
The second research question in this study centered on the college financing strategies of
Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders and their patterns of borrowing. Latino STEM bachelor’s
degree holders employed one of three strategies to finance college: (1) self-support; (2) parental
support; and (3) balanced support. ‘Self-supporters’ relied on loans, earnings, employer support
and scholarships/grants to pay for college and received little to no parental support. Students who
employed the ‘parental support’ strategy primarily relied on money from their parents or other
relatives to help pay for college and used loans, earnings, and scholarships/grants as a secondary
funding source. The ‘balanced support’ strategy involved paying for college through multiple
forms of financial aid including loans, work study, scholarships/grants, and money from parents
or other relatives.
The findings of this study revealed that certain financing strategies were more common
among Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders with specific characteristics and within certain
institutional pathways. The majority of self-supporting Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders
were non-traditionally aged and first-generation college students. Self-supporting students were
also overrepresented in the community college (CC/HSI and CC/non-HSI) institutional pathways
and at public institutions and were underrepresented at research universities. ‘Parentally
supported’ Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders, on the other hand were overwhelmingly
traditionally-aged and had college-educated parents. These Latino STEM B.S. degree holders
were overrepresented in the non-HSI institutional pathway, slightly underrepresented in the HSI
pathway, and severely underrepresented in the two institutional pathways involving community
colleges (CC/HSI and CC/non-HSI). ‘Parentally supported’ Latino STEM B.S. degree holders
were less likely to graduate from privately controlled institutions and were more likely to

206
graduate from research universities. Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders who employed the
‘balanced support’ college financing strategy generally were reflective of the entire population of
Latino STEM degree earners. Though traditionally-aged students were overrepresented among
‘balanced supporters,’ the extent of this overrepresentation was extremely small. The distribution
of parental education levels of Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders in the ‘balanced support
category nearly mirrored that of all Latino STEM B.S. degree holders. Those students who
employed a ‘balanced support’ financing strategy were overrepresented in the HSI and non-HSI
institutional pathways, and were underrepresented among associate degree earners. Latino STEM
bachelor’s degree holders who received ‘balanced support’ were overrepresented in private
institutions and research universities.
Previous research (DesJardins, Ahlburg, & McCall, 2002; Paulsen & St. John, 2002) has
illustrated that decisions regarding institutional pathways and college financing occur
simultaneously, making it difficult to fully understand the relationships between these two
decision-making processes. Further complicating matters is the fact that students often are
required to reconsider their financing decisions multiple times, as the composition of their
financial aid packages change from year to year and college costs rise. Though the findings of
this study show clear associations between Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders’ individual
characteristics and their financing strategies, the data and methods employed in this study were
not able to disentangle the relationships between college financing strategies and institutional
pathways.
For example, though the findings illustrate that ‘self-supporting’ Latino STEM
baccalaureates were overrepresented among associate degree earners, it is not clear whether ‘self
supporting’ students were able to execute such a financing strategy due to the cost savings
resulting in community college attendance, or if they selected a community college pathway in

207
order to stick to their preconceived ‘self support’ financing strategy. Similarly, while the findings
illustrate that ‘self supporting’ students were overrepresented in lower-priced HSIs, I am unable
to discern whether these students chose to attend HSIs so that they could self-finance college or if
they were able to self-finance because, on average, HSIs cost less to attend than non-HSIs. The
findings also reveal associations between the ‘parental support’ and ‘balanced support’ strategies
and institutional characteristics. However, due to the cross-sectional nature of the data and
limitations in the methods I employed, these relationships cannot be fully specified. Many
researchers (DesJardins et al., 2002; Paulsen & St. John, 2002; Perna, 2000) interested in the
relationships between institutional context and college financing decisions have noted the
difficulty of addressing these questions. Despite these challenges, the findings of the current
study illustrate interesting trends and provide several markers for further inquiry using qualitative
methods and other quantitative techniques with longitudinal data.
The second research question also centered on borrowing and the resulting relative debt
levels among Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders. To address this question, I conceptualized
debt as a relative construct such that the definition of ‘low debt’ and ‘high debt’ were dependent
upon average debt levels at the baccalaureate-granting institution. As previous studies illustrate,
decisions regarding college financing and borrowing are not rational processes. Debt tolerance
and borrowing behavior are shaped by many contextual factors, and perceptions of debt vary
among students based on their context (Archer & Hutchings, 2000; Christie & Munro, 2003;
McDonough, 2004; McDonough & Calderone, 2006; Trent, Lee, & Owens-Nicholson, 2006).
Though the literature provides an unclear picture of borrowing among Latino college students,
research illustrates that the decision to borrow and tolerance for debt are highly subjective. For
these reasons, I defined debt relative to the average borrowing at the baccalaureate-granting
institution and relative to the institutional pathway taken, i.e., time spent in a community college.

208
Thus, the ‘high debt’ and ‘low debt’ categories as defined in this study can be considered more
reflective of a student’s willingness to borrow or debt tolerance within their institutional
environment and eliminates the differences in debt level that may be attributable to cost
differences between institutions.
Interestingly, the findings of this study reveal significant differences in the relative level
of indebtedness among Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders by institutional pathway that
were not attributable to the cost differences of these four pathways. Latino STEM bachelor’s
degree holders who earned an associate degree and then graduate from an HSI were considerably
more likely to graduate with no debt than the average Latino STEM B.S. holder. However,
associate degree earners who later graduated from non-HSIs accumulated high relative debt levels
more commonly than students in any other institutional pathway (CC/HSI, HSI, or non-HSI).
Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders who graduated from an HSI without earning an associate
degree were slightly overrepresented among Latinos with ‘low debt’ and ‘high debt.’ Non-
associate degree earners who graduated from non-HSIs were overrepresented among those Latino
STEM bachelor’s degree holders with ‘low debt.’
Due to the relative definition of debt employed in this study, these differences in the level
of accumulated loan debt are not attributable to the differences in cost of the four institutional
pathways. Instead, institutional pathway may be confounding the effects of student-level
characteristics such as socioeconomic status (as measured by parental education) on debt
tolerance and willingness to borrow. The findings of this study illustrate that first generation
college students were overrepresented in the ‘high debt’ category, indicating that they borrowed
large amounts relative to the average student at their baccalaureate-granting institution. Further,
students whose parents were high school graduates were also overrepresented in the ‘low debt’
category. These first-generation students were also more likely to use the CC/HSI, CC/non-HSI

209
and HSI pathways. Thus, the overrepresentation of first-generation students in the community
college and HSI pathways likely contributes to the aforementioned differences in debt level by
institutional pathway. The descriptive techniques used in this study cannot unpack the
relationship between institutional pathway and students’ levels of indebtedness; however, the
constrained multinomial probit model of indebtedness employed in the propensity score matching
analysis indicates that parental education level has a significant effect on the level of borrowing
among Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders, with students who have at least one parent with a
graduate degree less likely to acquire debt.
The findings of this study also indicate that certain contextual factors are not associated
with the college financing strategies and borrowing behaviors of Latino STEM bachelor’s degree
holders. Notable factors along which differences in college financing strategy and borrowing did
not exist include the state in which a student graduated and Latino national origin. Instead, factors
in Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders’ immediate context such as parental education, and
individual characteristics such as non-traditional student status, and associate degree attainment
were associated with borrowing behaviors. Though it appeared that institutional pathway was also
strongly associated with college financing strategy, the exact nature of this relationship was not
discernable from the results of the study. Do students select certain institutional pathways that
will allow them to carry out their preconceived college financing strategies, or do students
develop college financing strategies based on their institutional contexts? The answer to this
question remains unclear. Additionally, the findings of this study reveal that institutional context
is associated with certain patterns of borrowing among Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders;
however a student’s institutional pathway may confound the effects of individual characteristics
such as socioeconomic status and age on borrowing behaviors. Additional variables not available
for this study including psychological and cognitive factors that have been shown previously to

210
affect willingness to borrow would likely help to disentangle the relationship between
institutional pathway and college financing.
The findings of this study illustrate that Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders
incorporate student loans into their college financing strategies. The findings further show that
though some previous research characterizes Latinos as debt averse (Burdman, 2005; De La Rosa
& Hernandez-Gravelle, 2007; Monaghan, 2001), the vast majority of Latino STEM bachelor’s
degree holders borrow as a means for financing higher education. Additionally, those Latino
STEM bachelor’s degree holders of lower SES backgrounds (as measured by parental education)
borrow at similar or higher rates than Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders from higher SES
backgrounds. Even more surprising, Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders who are first
generation students graduated with high levels of indebtedness relative to the average cumulative
debt at the B.S.-granting institution more often than Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders
whose parents held at least a four-year college degree. The findings of the current study reveal
the complexity of borrowing among Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders and underscore the
need to critically examine the broad-brush characterizations of Latinos as debt averse previously
offered in the literature.
The Effect of Indebtedness on Graduate School Enrollment
The final question in this study centered on the effect of indebtedness on graduate school
enrollment among Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders. This question was pursued using two
quantitative techniques: logistic regression and propensity score matching. Results from the
propensity score matching analysis indicated that low and high levels of relative indebtedness had
a negative effect on the probability of graduate school enrollment among Latino STEM
bachelor’s degree holders. Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders who accumulated low levels
of relative debt were, on average, 14% less likely to pursue graduate study than those who

211
finished the STEM bachelor’s degree with no debt. Interestingly, if those Latino STEM
bachelor’s degree holders who did not borrow at all had borrowed and accumulated a low relative
debt level, their likelihood of enrolling in graduate school would have dropped by nearly 16%.
This indicates that the negative effect on the likelihood of enrolling in graduate school associated
with borrowing at a low level is larger among Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders with a low
propensity to borrow.
High levels of relative indebtedness had a larger negative effect on the likelihood of
graduate school enrollment among Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders than low levels of
debt. On average, high debt reduced the probability of enrolling in graduate school by nearly
19%. The findings from the propensity score matching analysis indicate that Latino STEM
bachelor’s degree holders with a higher propensity to accumulate a high relative debt level upon
completing the B.S. degree experienced a smaller penalty on the probability of graduate school
enrollment than those students with a lower propensity to accumulate high debt. Further, if a
Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holder who did not borrow had accumulated a high level of
relative debt, she would have experienced a larger negative effect on graduate school enrollment
than her counterparts who did borrow at a high level.
To summarize, the findings of this study indicate that Latino STEM bachelor’s degree
holders who are willing to borrow and accumulate more debt than their peers within their
institutional environment are less likely to attend graduate school within two years of earning the
bachelor’s degree, while those students who are unwilling to borrow and do not accumulate debt
are more likely to attend graduate school within this timeframe. Results from this study agree
with some of the previous research on the direction of the effect of debt on graduate school
enrollment, but also demonstrate that previous research has underestimated the size of the

212
negative effects of debt. There may be several reasons for the negative relationship between debt
and graduate school enrollment.
Students with debt may wish to pay down that debt as early as possible, and could feel
that the opportunity costs in foregone earnings of attending graduate school are too large to bear.
Multiple studies have illustrated that higher levels of educational debt are associated with higher
initial wages (Minicozzi, 2005; Fosnacht & Santos, 2008), though over time borrowers
experience lower growth rates in wages (Fosnacht & Santos, 2008). Students with high debt may
wish to take advantage of this initial earning power in the labor market to pay down what they
perceive to be high levels of debt. Perhaps these students are aware that their educational debt
burden may force them to delay future borrowing or face higher interest rates (Flyer, 1997;
Orazem & Mattila, 1991) due to the effects of this debt on credit worthiness. In the eyes of
students with higher levels of debt, the long-term benefits of graduate school in terms of a steeper
career trajectory and the accompanying increased earning power may be outweighed by these
negative consequences of educational debt. The support for this interpretation of the relationship
between debt and graduate school enrollment would be bolstered if it were possible to delineate
between debts accrued through subsidized versus unsubsidized student loans. Because students
are able to defer repayment on subsidized loans without penalty until after they complete graduate
school, the effect of debt from subsidized student loans may be different.
An alternative interpretation for the negative effect of low and high debt on the likelihood
of graduate school enrollment is that borrowing behavior at the undergraduate level and resulting
relative debt levels could be associated with long-term educational plans. Those students who
borrow at higher levels may have initially planned to earn only a bachelor’s degree and thus, have
borrowed heavily as undergraduates. Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders who accumulate
lower levels of debt or do not borrow at all may have planned to earn a graduate degree prior to

213
entering college or early on in their undergraduate tenure, and thus desired to spread out their
borrowing across college and their anticipated post-baccalaureate careers. This borrowing
strategy would result in lower borrowing as undergraduates. These competing hypotheses ought
to be explored in future work.
Despite my uncertainty in understanding the cause of the negative relationship between
indebtedness and graduate school enrollment among Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders, the
findings do illustrate that both low and high levels of relative debt have larger negative effects on
graduate school enrollment among individuals with lower propensities to borrow. This suggests
that if these Latino students are in fact, averse to borrowing, this debt aversion has positive
benefits in the sense that they avoid experiencing the negative effects of debt on graduate school
enrollment. Much of the literature on educational borrowing frames debt aversion as a negative
characteristic of students that constrains educational options. Researchers who have discussed
debt aversion among Latino students attribute these behaviors to a lack of information about
student loans or cultural barriers to accumulating debt. These researchers have pointed out several
potential drawbacks to avoiding debt included being forced to attend lower cost institutions,
working while in school, or even stopping out to save more money to pay for school. While an
unwillingness to borrow to finance college may results in these negative effects, few researchers
have explored the possible benefits of not borrowing. The findings of this study suggest that
perhaps students who opt not to accumulate high relative debt levels unknowingly benefit in
terms of graduate school enrollment.
The final key finding of my study pertains to quantitative methods. I used both logistic
regression and propensity score matching techniques to understand the relationship between debt
and graduate school enrollment. Comparing the results of these two methods illustrated that
logistic regression methods underestimated the size of the negative effects of debt on graduate

214
school enrollment. This finding underscores the need to address problems of self-selection when
trying to assess the effects of various educational treatments on outcomes. As previous
researchers have argued, experimental research designs tend not to be feasible in postsecondary
education, leading researchers to rely heavily on ex-post facto data. However, because students
are not randomly assigned to treatment conditions, particularly treatments related to financial aid,
endogeneity remains a considerable problem in higher education research. This study suggests
that propensity score matching can serve as an alternative strategy to standard regression
techniques.
Limitations of the Study
This study has several limitations, the first of which is the primary data source, the
National Survey of Recent College Graduates (NSRCG). The NSRCG is limited in the sense that
there are key classes of variables that are likely to simultaneously impact the outcome variable of
interest (i.e., graduate school enrollment) and the propensity score (i.e., predicted probability of
participating in a loan program at a given level) that are not included in the data set. Some of
these omitted variables include students’ aspirations, indicators of academic and social integration
involvement, socioeconomic status, and high school grades and course taking patterns. Further,
the variables related to financial aid usage are less than ideal. For example, the NSRCG does not
provide aid amounts for non-loan financial aid. Instead, students simply indicate whether they
received the specified forms of financial aid. Additionally, the NSRCG does not provide the
students’ debt levels disaggregated by loan type (e.g., subsidized versus unsubsidized) which
prohibited me from determining whether the effects of debt vary based on the type of loan.
Finally, the NSRCG data only provides respondent’s indebtedness as a categorical variable. This
means of operationalizing debt neglects its threshold nature; ideally, the relative level of
indebtedness ought to be provided as a continuous variable.

215
A second limitation of the study pertains to my focus on associate degree earners. This
approach, which was necessitated by the available variables in the NSRCG, certainly excluded
those students who used the community college as a pathway to a STEM bachelor’s degree via
transfer without earning an AA/AS, as many students do not earn an associate degree before
transferring. Though this represents a limitation in that the population under study is a subset of
all community college transfer students, the current higher education policy environment in
which heavily incentivized or mandated associate degree attainment is being explored as a means
to increase the efficiency of public higher education system makes this population particularly
interesting. As state policy makers consider making the associate degree a necessary step for
more students, it is important to understand how associate degree holders differ from those
students who do not earn the AA/AS in terms of educational outcomes (e.g., baccalaureate-
granting institutional characteristics, field of study, and patterns of participation in financial aid).
There are also limitations to the methods I used in the current study. While PSM is
capable of addressing the issue of self-selection bias, it is possible that unobserved characteristics
or “unobservables” simultaneously impact the outcome variable of interest (i.e., graduate school
enrollment) and the propensity score (i.e., predicted probability of participating in a loan program
at a given level). Although all relevant observed variables were included in the analyses, I was
unable to account for “unobservables”. As such, while PSM represents an alternative to
regression methods, both techniques are subject to the effects of unobservables.
An equally serious limitation was related to the small sample sizes of Latino STEM
bachelor’s degree holders in the NSRCG sample. Higher education literature on financial aid and
the borrowing of Latinos illustrates that there are significant differences among Latino students
based on U.S. nativity and national origin (Tornatzky, Cutler, & Lee, 2002; Tomás Rivera Policy
Institute, 2004; Santiago & Cunningham, 2005; Zarate & Pachon, 2006). In order to capture these

216
differences, I disaggregated the Latino students in the sample by national origin. However, this
resulted in sub-samples too small to draw statistically significant conclusions. I was also forced to
treat the Latino students in the NSRCG sample in the aggregate to compensate for small sample
sizes while conducting the PSM analysis.
Small sample sizes also prohibited me from conducting separate propensity score
matching analyses on associate degree earners and non-associate degree earners within the
sample of Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders. Thus it is possible that the effects of debt on
graduate school enrollment vary among Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders who earned an
AA/AS from a community college and those who did not earn an AA/AS degree.
Directions for Future Research
While the present study significantly contributes to our knowledge regarding the
institutional pathways and college financing strategies of Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders
and the effect of debt on their graduate school enrollment, the findings raise many new questions
that ought to be pursued in future research. These questions are discussed below.
In what ways do those Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders who do not earn an
associate degree but still attend community college use the 2-year institutions? The primary data
source for this study, the NSRCG, only indicates if respondents earn an associate degree and
whether they attend community college at any point for any reason. Thus, I was unable to
determine the ways in which Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders who attended community
college but did not earn an associate degree used the two-year institution. Do these students
simply transfer from the community college without earning the associate degree? Or, do these
Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders take courses for credit ‘a la carte’ via reverse transfer or
“swirling,” i.e., concurrent enrollment at two-year and four-year institutions (McCormick, 2003)?
These two functions are very different, and it is important to characterize the role of community

217
colleges in the educational experiences of Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders.
Unfortunately, data available through the National Science Foundation, which compiles the most
information on STEM degree holders, do not include these indicators. The questions raised by
this study underscore the importance of collecting additional data on community college
experiences of STEM degree holders. The study also points to the potential benefits of employing
national and state-level data sources with detailed transcript data to examine the ways in which
Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders use the community colleges. Such data sources will
allow researchers to further understand the function of community colleges in the education of
Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders.
Why do Latinos who graduate from HSIs earn STEM bachelor’s degrees in the “hard”
STEM disciplines more commonly than their counterparts at non-HSIs? Historically Black
colleges and universities (HBCUs) and women’s colleges have been shown to increase STEM
degree attainment among their target populations. The levels of success among HBCUs and
women’s colleges have been attributed to their supportive institutional environments. However,
Hispanic-serving institutions are unlike other MSIs in that they are designated as minority serving
institutions based on enrollment rather than mission orientation.
The findings of this study illustrate that Hispanic-serving institutions award higher
proportions of STEM degrees in the “hard” sciences to Latinos than non-HSIs, which raises many
questions about HSIs and their institutional environments. Do HSIs award more degrees in the
“hard” sciences because they employ institutional policies and practices aimed at fulfilling the
responsibilities implied by the Hispanic serving designation? Contreras, Malcom and Bensimon’s
(2008) study of a ten HSIs revealed that these institutions only quietly acknowledge the
‘Hispanic-serving’ designation, if at all. Do the findings of this study reflect a change in
institutional attitudes toward the HSI designation? Alternatively, Hispanic-serving institutions’

218
success in awarded STEM bachelor’s degrees in the fields in which Latinos are most severely
underrepresented may reflect the benefits of a “critical mass” of Latino students rather than
purposeful action on the part of the institutions. An additional explanation could be related to
self-selection processes by which Latino students who are more apt to earn a degree in a “hard”
science field ‘self-select’ themselves into HSIs. These questions point to areas for future research.
Do unsubsidized and subsidized student loan debts differentially affect graduate school
enrollment among Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders? While the findings of this study
characterize the effect of relative debt on graduate school enrollment, the relationship between
debt and graduate school enrollment warrants further study. I was unable to determine whether
debt from unsubsidized loans affects graduate school enrollment differently from debt from
subsidized loans. Future studies that explore this question using appropriate quantitative methods
would increase our understanding of the effects of debt. Educational researchers interested in the
effects of debt on educational outcomes would benefit from rich data sets containing multiple
attitudinal, aspirational, and cognitive measures so that uncertainty in the estimated treatment
effects introduced by selection on “unobservables” can be reduced.
In addition, researchers can better understand the effect of indebtedness on graduate
school enrollment by using methodologically sophisticated quantitative techniques capable of
“adding a timing light” (DesJardins, McCall, Ahlburg & Moye, 2002, p. 555) to their analysis.
Techniques such as structural equation modeling and latent growth analysis will enable
researchers to understand how the accumulation of debt over time alters student aspirations
regarding graduate school throughout the undergraduate experience.

219
CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The purpose of this study was to characterize the institutional pathways traversed by
Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders, understand the college financing strategies employed by
these students, and determine the effect of indebtedness on graduate school enrollment. In this
final chapter of the present work, I offer interpretations of the key findings using the lens of
cumulative (dis)advantage theory. I conclude by discussing implications for policy and practice.
Revisiting Cumulative (Dis)advantage: A Tale of Three Students
I began my dissertation by arguing that persistent race-based educational inequities,
including the underrepresentation of Latinos in STEM fields, can be linked to the disadvantages
Latinos have accumulated throughout previous generations of opportunity denial. I sought to
uncover the ways in which these disadvantages and their associated context shape the patterns of
institutional and financial aid access and outcomes of Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders.
This study revealed the complex ways in which context interacts with and shapes these
students’ institutional pathways, college financing strategies, STEM degree outcomes and
graduate school enrollment. The findings suggest that there are multiple unexpected means
through which Latinos in STEM accumulate advantages and disadvantages within their pathways
to STEM, often simultaneously. The study offers a counternarrative to existing educational
literature by suggesting that many contexts commonly thought to be disadvantaging are capable
of offering benefits to Latinos in STEM, provided that students’ initial disadvantages are
mitigated.
To better illustrate the ways in which Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders
simultaneously accumulate advantage and disadvantage in unexpected ways, I present fictional
composites of three students, each traversing a different pathway to STEM. The composites are

220
informed by this study’s findings and reflect the common patterns of access and financial aid
participation revealed by the present analyses. Following the three composites, I discuss the
implications of the findings.
Inez: The Story of a Non-traditionally Aged First Generation College Student
Inez’s pathway to STEM. Immediately after Inez graduated from high school with a B
grade point average, she found a job in order to help pay for her father’s medical bills. Inez turned
her love for math into a profession and handled the bookkeeping at a small, neighborhood grocery
store.
After working at the store for a couple of years, Inez’s boss suggested that she think
about going to college. Neither Inez’s father nor mother went to college, so she was not sure
where to apply or how to pay for it. Upon soliciting advice from her friends and family, Inez
decided to enroll in Los Angeles Community College (LACC), which was a 15 minute bus ride
from her job. Inez continued to work during the day, while taking classes in the evenings. She
squeezed in studying each morning before work and on weekends.
After two and half years of taking classes, Inez earned her associate degree in
mathematics. In her final semester, Inez attended LACC’s transfer fair to learn more about
colleges and universities from which she could earn her bachelor’s degree. Inez wanted to major
in math and applied to multiple California State University (Cal State) campuses and UCLA.
Unfortunately, Inez was not admitted to UCLA because math was an “impacted” program. She
decided to attend Cal State LA—her second choice institution and an HSI.
Inez applied for financial aid and received a Pell Grant, but was faced with the dilemma
of borrowing $1,000 dollars each year to help pay for her tuition, fees, and books. Her parents did
not have the financial means to help with college costs and Inez did not feel comfortable
borrowing, so she decided to continue working part-time at the store while attending Cal State

221
LA. She was able to further reduce her college costs by living at home and taking the bus to
campus.
During her first semester at Cal State LA, Inez excelled in her math courses and became
involved in the Society of Hispanic Engineers (SHPE). After learning more about engineering
through SHPE, Inez switched her major from mathematics to electrical engineering. Many of the
students in SHPE were also electrical engineering majors and they formed study groups in which
Inez participated. Her classmates were a vital source of support as she continued to make progress
toward her bachelor’s degree.
Inez’s SHPE faculty advisor suggested she think about going to graduate school and try
to get some research experience. He explained to her that while the research opportunities for
undergraduates were limited at Cal State LA, she should consider applying for an internship at a
local company; he even volunteered to call some of his contacts in the engineering industry.
Though the idea of an internship appealed to Inez, both of the companies that were interested in
giving her a position were located in the Inland Empire—too far for Inez to travel and make it
back to Los Angeles in time for her shift at work. Because the companies could not pay her, Inez
ultimately lost out on these opportunities because she was unable to quit her job at the store.
During her final semester as an undergraduate, Inez applied to the master’s of
Engineering program at the University of Southern California (USC) and Cal State Long Beach.
Unlike many of her peers, Inez had no student loan debt and thus, did not feel pressured to get a
job right after graduation. She was almost certain she would not get into her first choice graduate
program at USC because they placed a high value on research experience and she did not have
any. In the end, Inez enrolled in the master’s program at Cal State Long Beach after being denied
admission at USC.

222
Advantages and disadvantages in Inez’s story. Inez’s story, though fictional, illustrates
the complex ways in which context shapes students’ accumulation of disadvantages and
advantages along the pathway to STEM. Inez was a first-generation, non-traditionally aged
college student. She delayed entry to postsecondary education, entering community college a few
years after graduating from high school. Inez’s non-traditional status and her need to continue
working while in school compounded her limited organizational habitus (McDonough, 1997),
leading her to enroll in community college. Though there remains some uncertainty about the
diversionary effects of community college attendance, particularly among Latinos (Melguizo, in
press), previous literature demonstrates that community college reduces the likelihood of
attaining a bachelor’s degree (Adelman, 2006; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Thus, a potential
disadvantage looms for Inez in the institutional context of the community college.
In the above example, Inez is able to mitigate this disadvantage and successfully
completes her associate degree in mathematics. However, she quickly encounters an additional
disadvantage resulting from her community college attendance as she is unable to transfer to her
first choice institution due to its limited capacity to admit transfer students to oversubscribed
academic programs. In California, this is a common barrier faced by community college transfer
students who wish to major in a STEM field at the most selective University of California
institutions (University of California, n.d.). Thus, community college attendance causes Inez to
accumulate an additional disadvantage in the form of constrained college options. Inez ends up
attending Cal State LA, which is a Hispanic-serving, non-research university close to her home
community.
Within the institutional environment of Cal State LA, Inez simultaneously accumulates
advantages and disadvantages along the pathway to her bachelor’s degree. The first advantage
Inez accumulates pertains to college financing. The relatively low cost of attendance at Cal State

223
LA enabled Inez to execute a ‘self-support’ college financing strategy. Though her parents were
unable to help her pay for college, Inez was able to live at home, lowering her cost of living. Her
university’s close proximity to her neighborhood also allowed her to continue working her job at
the neighborhood grocery store part-time. This income enabled Inez to avoid borrowing to
finance college. As reflected by the findings of this study, Inez’s likelihood of attending graduate
school was increased because she completed the bachelor’s degree without debt.
Another key advantage provided to Inez by the environment of Cal State LA involved
academic support. Cal State LA is a Hispanic-serving institution and had an active chapter of the
Society of Hispanic Engineers (SHPE). Inez became involved in SHPE and was exposed to the
field of electrical engineering. Although this was not her originally intended major, Inez’s
participation in SHPE gave her access to a network of Latino students with which she could
identify, socially and academically. Her involvement in the Latino professional organization also
enabled Inez to interact with the SHPE faculty advisor, who provided Inez with advice about
graduate school and the importance of undergraduate research. Inez’s academic support network
likely facilitated her persistence in electrical engineering, an academically challenging “hard”
science field in which Latinos are severely underrepresented.
The institutional environment of Cal State LA also caused Inez to accumulate
disadvantages. Because Cal State LA, like the majority of HSIs, is not a research institution,
undergraduate research opportunities were extremely limited. Though her SHPE faculty advisor
recognized the value of engaging in undergraduate research, the institution was unable to provide
Inez with these opportunities. Undergraduate research has been illustrated to be positively
associated with graduate school attendance, particularly among underrepresented minorities in
STEM fields (Foertsch, Alexander, & Penberthy, 1997; Kardash, 2000; Kinkead, 2003; Sabatini,
1997). Though her SHPE faculty advisor encouraged Inez to look for internships off-campus

224
within the engineering industry, barriers in terms of location, transportation, and time prevented
Inez from doing so. In this instance, Inez’s initial disadvantage in terms of socioeconomic class
compounded a disadvantaging aspect of her institutional context (i.e., lack of undergraduate
research opportunities).
Inez enrolled in graduate school; however, she was denied admission to the master’s
program at a highly selective private university because she did not have research experience.
Thus, while the lack of research opportunities at her bachelor’s degree granting HSI did not
prevent Inez from attending graduate school, it disadvantaged her in terms of the quality of her
graduate institution. This may lead to future disadvantages in terms of earnings (Brewer et al.,
1998; Dale & Kruger, 2002; Monks, 2000).
In sum, Inez’s institutional pathway to her STEM bachelor’s degree and her college
financing strategy resulted in the simultaneous accumulation of advantages and disadvantages.
Her initial disadvantage due to her first-generation and non-traditional student status constrained
her college options, resulting in her enrollment in community college. While the community
college served as a low-cost pathway to a four-year institution via transfer (an advantage), the
community college institutional context also disadvantaged Inez by limiting her ability to be
admitted to a highly selective four-year institution. Inez’s enrollment in a local, four-year HSI
resulted in simultaneous accumulation of advantage and disadvantage. The institutional context
of the HSI advantaged Inez in three ways. First, due to the institution’s low college costs, Inez’s
income from a part-time job was enough to cover her unmet financial need and helped her to
avoid debt, which raised her likelihood of attending graduate school. Second, the institution’s
proximity to her neighborhood allowed Inez to live at home with her parents, further lowering her
college costs. Third, the institution’s environment provided Inez with sources of social and
academic support within her major that facilitated her persistence, major retention, and degree

225
attainment. However, Inez’s attendance at the HSI also disadvantaged her by limiting her
opportunities to engage in undergraduate research, thereby reducing her ability to be admitted to a
selective graduate program and lowering her subsequent earning potential. Inez’s story reflects
the complex ways in which a student’s initial disadvantages, institutional pathway, college
financing strategy, and resulting student loan debt operate to simultaneously advantage and
disadvantage that student.
Alex: A Traditionally Aged, Second Generation College Student
Alex’s story. Alex, a second generation college student decided to go to community
college after being denied admission to USC, his first choice institution. He had heard from some
of his classmates that if he joined the honors program at Santa Monica Community College and
maintained a high GPA, he would have a better chance of gaining admission to USC as a transfer
student. Alex attended community college for two years and completed all of the requirements to
transfer to the neuroscience program. Only at the behest of his parents did Alex fill out the form
to be granted his associate degree.
Though Alex applied for many scholarships and received state and institutional grant aid,
he needed to take out nearly $5,000 in loans each year to pay the high cost of attending USC.
Alex’s parents encouraged him to borrow because they knew how important it was for Alex to
attend USC and they viewed loans as a means for him to avoid working while in school.
After arriving at USC, Alex had a difficult time connecting with the other students in his
major. He was the only Latino in the majority of his courses, and was intimidated by his
professors. Already self-conscious about being a transfer student, Alex did not ask questions in
class, even though most of the material was going over his head. Alex’s time in his residence hall
amongst his suitemates was his only respite from the isolation he felt in his classes. By the middle
of the semester, Alex had stopped going to class. He subsequently failed the midterm in two of

226
his classes, and went on to drop them. Though Alex tried to refocus and worked hard to pass his
three remaining neuroscience courses, he had already fallen too far behind.
After his first semester, Alex was placed on academic probation. Upon his parents’
advice, Alex switched his major from neuroscience to psychology. Because he was missing some
of the prerequisite courses for his new major, Alex spent a total of three years at USC. He
graduated with about $17,000 in debt—more than most of the other community college transfer
students he knew. Eager to pay off of his loans, Alex decided to get a job. He attended career fairs
on-campus and landed several interviews during the spring semester of his final year at USC.
Shortly after graduating, Alex accepted a job offer from an advertising agency owned by a USC
alum.
Advantage and disadvantage in Alex’s story. The fictional story of Alex illustrates the
ways in which certain institutional pathways and college financing strategies can advantage and
disadvantage Latino students in terms of STEM outcomes. Alex transferred from a community
college to a non-Hispanic serving, highly selective research institution. He elected to attend Santa
Monica College in a strategic move and had well-defined academic goals. Thus, Alex avoided
many of the disadvantages reportedly associated with the community college institutional context.
However after transferring, Alex quickly began to accumulate disadvantages from the
institutional context of his non-Hispanic serving research university. The first disadvantage
related to Alex’s field of major. Though Alex entered USC as a neuroscience major, he was
unable to find sources of academic and social support within his department. As the only Latino
and community college transfer student in his courses, Alex felt extremely isolated. These
feelings led to poor academic performance, and Alex switched from the “hard” science field of
neuroscience to psychology, a social science field. This is a disadvantage because the “hard”
science disciplines in which Latinos are most severely underrepresented tend to be more high

227
demand and lead to higher earning potential (NSF, 2005). Further, Alex’s change of major
required him to spend an additional year at USC, beyond what he planned initially.
Alex’s second disadvantage pertained to college financing. Due to the high cost of
attending USC, Alex took out several thousands of dollars in loans for each of the three years he
spent at USC. This caused him to graduate with a significant amount of debt relative to other
community college transfer students at the university. His relatively high level of debt deterred
Alex from attending graduate school because he wanted to begin paying off his student loans as
soon as possible.
Attending a highly selective institution certainly helped Alex to accumulate advantages.
He secured a well-paying job immediately after graduation, and was able to tap into the
extensive, well-connected alumni network. Alex’s employers were certainly impressed with his
college pedigree, which played a large part in his hiring. There were many other ways in which
the institutional context of USC could have benefited Alex (e.g., undergraduate research,
involvement in academic organizations); however, Alex’s initial academic difficulties prevented
this from occurring.
In sum, Alex garnered simultaneous advantages and disadvantages while earning a
STEM bachelor’s degree. By attending community college, Alex was able to lower his initial
college costs and gain admission to a highly selective institution via transfer. However, after
enrolling at the non-Hispanic serving, highly selective research university, Alex began to quickly
accumulate disadvantages. He did not connect with the students in his initial major, neuroscience,
and developed feelings of isolation. He fell behind in his classes, and ended up switching to
majors to psychology, a field not as “high demand” as neuroscience. Alex’s initial academic
difficulties required him to remain at his four-year institution for an extra year and to borrow
more than he initially anticipated. Alex graduated with a higher level of debt than his peers who

228
also transferred from community college, and decided against graduate school so that he could
begin to pay down his loans. While the institution’s prestige advantaged Alex during his job
search, his decision to forgo graduate school would act as disadvantage to him in the long run in
terms of earning potential (Becker, 1993; Titus, 2007).
Eva: A Traditionally Aged, Second Generation College Student
Eva, the daughter of a nurse, graduated from a magnet high school for students interested
in science. She applied to multiple universities, eventually settling on UCLA. Eva wished to
major in biology, and eventually wanted to go to medical school. Eva applied for financial aid,
but her package consisted primarily of loans due to her middle-class socioeconomic status.
Realizing the amount of debt she would later incur in medical school, Eva’s mother discouraged
her from borrowing heavily as an undergraduate. Her mother, who also had to care for Eva’s
younger brother on a single income, took on extra shifts at the hospital so that she could keep
Eva’s borrowing to a minimum. Eva ended up borrowing about $1,000 in her first year, and
slightly more each subsequent year.
In her sophomore year, Eva found a part-time job as an assistant in a genetics lab on
campus to help pay college costs and to gain research experience. She felt it was important to
build her resume in order to increase her chances of being accepted into medical school. Because
Eva spent most of her time in the lab, in class, and in the library studying, her circle of friends
was small, consisting of a few women from her residence hall.
Eva graduated from UCLA with a cumulative debt level of about $5,000—an amount
much lower than that of her peers. Eva was accepted to medical school during her final semester
at UCLA and was chosen to participate in a special summer program for underrepresented
minorities at the medical school. However Eva declined this invitation and deferred her entry
until the fall semester so that she could work during the summer and pay off her loans.

229
Advantages and disadvantages in Eva’s story. This fictional story of a Latina, second-
generation college student demonstrates the ways in which institutional pathways and college
financing strategies that are considered to be advantaging can also result in the accumulation of
disadvantage. Prior to college, Eva possessed initial advantages; she attended a magnet high
school for science and her mother was employed in a science-related field. These advantages
“smoothed” her path to attend a highly selective research university. Though Eva’s mother was
not wealthy, her middle-class socioeconomic status enabled Eva to limit her borrowing and incur
a low level of debt relative to other students at her institution. Eva benefited from her mother’s
experiences within the medical profession as she advised Eva to limit borrowing as an
undergraduate because of the future debt she would accumulate in medical school.
The institutional context of the highly selective research university from which Eva
graduated simultaneously advantaged and disadvantaged her. In terms of advantages, Eva was
able to engage in undergraduate research in an area related to her major, biology. The wide
availability of research opportunities is a characteristic unique to the environments of research
universities (NSF, 1996; Strassburger, 1995). Additionally, the highly selective nature of her
undergraduate institution acts as a form of capital, facilitating her admission to graduate school
(Eide, Brewer & Ehrenberg, 1998).
However, Eva was also disadvantaged by her institutional context. Due to the higher
costs of attending highly selective, non-Hispanic serving institutions, Eva was required to borrow
to finance her education, though she was able to keep the level of debt relatively low. As the
findings of this study show, both relatively high and relatively low levels of debt disadvantage
Latino STEM majors by lowering the probability of graduate school enrollment. In this particular
vignette, Eva did enroll in medical school. However, her indebtedness caused her to defer her
enrollment by one semester.

230
The stories of Inez, Alex and Eva illustrate the ways in which initial disadvantages shape
Latinos’ patterns of institutional access and financial aid participation, and the complex manner in
which the resulting institutional pathways and college financing strategies cause Latino STEM
degree holders to simultaneously accumulate disadvantage and advantage. I turn to a broader
discussion of these implications below.
Complicating our Understanding of ‘Disadvantaging’ Contexts for Latinos in STEM
Much of the higher education research on Latinos focuses on these students’ patterns of
institutional access and achievement, and the barriers posed by college costs and access to
financial aid. Conventional wisdom, borne out of empirical research, frames our understanding of
the institutional and financial aid contexts that disadvantage Latino students. Such dominant
narratives include: community college is seen as a less desirable entry point to higher education
than direct enrollment at a four-year institution; attendance at a higher-status, selective research
university is thought to be advantageous compared to enrollment in a lower-status, less selective,
Hispanic serving institution; and, debt aversion, or an unwillingness to borrow to finance college,
limits postsecondary educational access for Latino students. Previous research lends credence to
these dominant narratives in the literature. However, the findings of this study necessitate that we
complicate our understanding of the relationships between the aforementioned institutional and
financial aid pathways and the accumulation of disadvantage among Latino STEM bachelor’s
degree holders.
The findings of this study reveal that institutional pathways and financing strategies
conventionally thought to be ‘disadvantaging’ can simultaneously benefit Latinos in terms of
STEM outcomes. As illustrated in the three preceding vignettes, these advantages pertained to
Latinos’ field of study within STEM, levels of indebtedness, and graduate school enrollment.

231
Latinos are most severely underrepresented in the “hard science” fields, e.g., biology,
physical science, and mathematics. The findings of this study illustrate that attending an HSI,
even after earning an associate degree from a community college, is positively associated with
majoring in a “hard science” field. In this sense, a Latino student who attends an HSI receives an
advantage from that attendance. However, HSIs tend to be less selective, non-research
institutions; a fact that may act as a detriment to Latino STEM majors because they have fewer
opportunities to engage in undergraduate research which has been shown to be associated with
graduate school enrollment (Foertsch, Alexander, & Penberthy, 1997; Kardash, 2000; Kinkead,
2003; Sabatini, 1997). Thus, the findings suggest that for a Latino student, the decision to attend
an HSI simultaneously advantages and disadvantages that student in terms of STEM outcomes.
A second example of simultaneous accumulation of advantage and disadvantage pertains
to Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders’ institutional pathways and college financing
strategies. Community college attendance is thought to have a diversionary effect on educational
aspirations and attainment, though these effects have recently been shown to be overestimated
among Latino students (Melguizo, in press). In this sense, the institutional context of community
colleges disadvantages students by reducing their chances of earning a bachelor’s degree.
However, the findings of this study illustrate that those Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders
who earned an associate degree were more likely to enact a ‘self-support’ college financing
strategy, resulting in lower levels of relative debt than non-associate degree holders. With the
negative effects of debt on graduate school enrollment revealed in this study, the community
college context can be beneficial to students by allowing them to implement a ‘self-support’
financing strategy and avoid incurring high levels of relative debt.
The final example of the simultaneous accumulation of advantage and disadvantage can
be drawn from the findings regarding college financing and the effect of debt on graduate school

232
enrollment. Previous literature illustrates that an unwillingness to borrow to finance college can
result in constrained college choice and limit access to pricier, private institutions, and several
researchers (Monaghan, 2001; De La Rosa & Hernandez-Gravelle, 2007) have attributed the
smaller percentages of Latino college students who borrow to debt aversion. Though the present
study reveals that Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders do, in fact, borrow and that Latino
STEM B.S. holders from lower SES backgrounds accumulate higher levels of relative debt more
commonly than those of higher SES, it is true that Latino students, on average, borrow less in
absolute dollars than students from other racial/ethnic groups. Lower debt tolerances act as a
disadvantage in terms of access to certain institutions. However, the findings of this study
illustrate that low and high levels of indebtedness, defined relative to the average borrowing at a
student’s institution, negatively affect the likelihood of attending graduate school among Latino
STEM bachelor’s degree holders. In other words, not borrowing is advantageous when
considering the educational outcome of graduate study. The decision to borrow to finance college
is another example of simultaneous advantage and disadvantage. Initially, a willingness to accrue
debt advantages Latino students in that student loans widen the range of college options; but, the
resulting debt later acts as a disadvantage for Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders, reducing
the likelihood of attending graduate school.
The findings of this study reveal that the relationships between Latino STEM bachelor’s
degree holders’ context, institutional pathways, and college financing strategies commonly result
in the simultaneous accumulation of advantage and disadvantage. The present study complicates
our understanding of cumulative (dis)advantage and disputes the direct linkages between initial
disadvantage and future disadvantage.
The figures below (Figures 6.1–6.3) depict the three vignettes from the beginning of this
chapter and illustrate the multiple ways in which certain institutional pathways and college

233
financing strategies can be both beneficial and detrimental to Latinos in terms of STEM
outcomes. In the figures, gray rectangles represent what are typically considered to be
disadvantaging contexts, and white rectangles represent advantaging contexts. In the diagrams, a
plus (+) sign indicates a positive association or increased probability of exhibiting the specified
behavior or achieving the indicated educational outcome, and a minus (–) sign represents a
negative association or decreased probability of exhibiting the behavior or achieving the outcome.
Figure 6.1 illustrates the ways in which Inez’s initial disadvantages led to future
disadvantages and at the same time, advantages. Inez, a first generation college student, is more
likely to be non-traditionally aged and to attend community college—two disadvantages in terms
of bachelor’s degree attainment. The findings from this study show that if a Latino student
successfully overcomes those disadvantages and transfers with an associate degree as Inez did,
she is more likely to end up attending an HSI. This attendance at an HSI results in the advantages
of having lower college costs (Santiago & Cunningham, 2005) and as my findings show,
accumulating less relative debt and earning the STEM bachelor’s degree in a “hard science” area.
My findings also reveal that these advantages garnered by Latinos who follow community college
to HSI pathway (i.e., lower relative debt and an increased likelihood of earning a STEM B.S.
degree in a “hard” science discipline) positively affect graduate school enrollment, a desirable
outcome. However, the literature also demonstrates that HSIs typically offer Latino STEM majors
fewer opportunities to engage in undergraduate research—a disadvantage in terms of graduate
school enrollment (Foertsch, Alexander, & Penberthy, 1997; Kardash, 2000; Kinkead, 2003;
Sabatini, 1997; Seymour et al., 2004).

234

Figure 6.1. Inez’s Story: Accumulating Advantage and Disadvantage

+
Inez:
Latina First-
Generation
College Student
+
Non-traditional
Student Status
Community College
Attendance
STEM Bachelor’s
Degree Attainment
Fewer Undergraduate
Research Opportunities
STEM Degree in
“Hard” Science
Discipline
Low Levels of
Absolute Debt
‘Self Support’
College Financing
Strategy
No Debt from
Borrowing
Graduate
School
Attendance
Attendance at
less selective
HSIs
Lower
College
Costs
+
+
–
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ –
–
Legend
Advantaging Context : positive association, or increased probability

Disadvantaging Context : negative association, or decreased probability
+
–

235
Figure 6.2 illustrates the advantages and disadvantages accumulated by Alex along his
pathway to STEM. Relative to Inez, Alex possessed initial advantages because his parents
attended college. However, Alex entered a disadvantaging context by attending community
college. Alex successfully transferred to a highly selective research university, which is
conventionally considered to be an advantaging environment. However, the institutional context
of the university acted as a source of disadvantage for Alex by preventing him from earning his
bachelor’s degree in a “hard” STEM field. Alex’s ‘balanced support’ college financing strategy
and the financial aid context of the research university led to further accumulation of
disadvantage for Alex. He accrued a relatively high level of debt at the institution, which
prevented him from enrolling in graduate school.

236
Figure 6.2. Alex’s Story: Accumulating Advantage and Disadvantage
Alex:
Latino
Second-Generation
College Student
Community College
Attendance
STEM Bachelor’s
Degree Attainment
STEM Degree in
Social Science
Discipline
High Levels of
Absolute Debt
‘Balanced Support’
College Financing
Strategy
High Relative Debt
Level from
Borrowing
Graduate
School
Attendance
Attendance at
Highly Selective
Research
University
Higher
College
Costs
+
–
–
–
+
–
–
+
+
+
+
Legend
Advantaging Context : positive association, or increased probability

Disadvantaging Context : negative association, or decreased probability
+
–
237

Eva’s story is illustrated in Figure 6.3. Like Alex, Eva possessed initial advantages
relative to Inez because her mother attended college and was employed in a science-related field.
Further, Eva’s high school was endowed with a relatively high level of organizational habitus
(McDonough, 1997). Eva’s initial advantages led her to enroll in a highly selective research
university. Though my findings reveal that the institutional context of non-HSI research
universities is negatively associated with degree attainment in a “hard” STEM field, Eva’s
participation in undergraduate research allowed her to avoid accumulating this particular
disadvantage. Her undergraduate research experiences acted as a further advantage, as
participation in research is positively associated with graduate school attendance (Foertsch,
Alexander, & Penberthy, 1997; Kardash, 2000; Kinkead, 2003; Sabatini, 1997; Seymour et al.,
2004). Eva employed a ‘parental support’ college financing strategy, which allowed her to
accumulate a relatively low level of debt due to borrowing. However, this debt still acted as a
disadvantage by causing Eva to defer her enrollment in graduate school.

238
Figure 6.3. Eva’s Story: Accumulating Advantage and Disadvantage
Eva:
Latina
Second-Generation
College Student
Undergraduate
Research Opportunities
STEM Degree in
“Hard” Science
Discipline
High Levels of
Absolute Debt
‘Parental Support’
College Financing
Strategy
Low Relative Debt
Level from
Borrowing
Graduate
School
Attendance
Attendance at
Highly Selective
Research
University
Higher
College
Costs
+
+
+
–
+
–
+
+ +
+
+
Legend
Advantaging Context : positive association, or increased probability

Disadvantaging Context : negative association, or decreased probability
+
–
239

The findings of this study reveal that there are a multitude of ways in which contextual
factors shape Latino students’ decisions about institutional pathways and college financing
strategies, which result in advantages or disadvantages in terms of educational outcomes.
In order to achieve the desirable outcome of graduate school enrollment (and graduate degree
attainment), a Latino student must successfully navigate the complex webs shown in the
preceding figures (Figures 6.1–6.3), overcoming their accumulated disadvantage while amassing
advantages as opportunities to do so present themselves. Institutional actors and policymakers
can help Latino students to mitigate the accumulation of disadvantage through strategic
interventions in the form of policies and practices.
Moving Toward a General Model of STEM Postsecondary Outcomes for Latinos?
The current study and the findings that have emerged underscore the difficulty in
establishing a model of disadvantaging and advantaging contextual factors that affect Latino
students’ outcomes related to STEM. As this study has illustrated factors within the layers of
context in which Latino students are located can have simultaneous positive and negative effects.
Through the three vignettes presented above I have argued that the “net” effect of those factors
depends heavily on whether disadvantages can be mitigated through specific policies, practices,
or even interactions (i.e., student-student, student-faculty, etc.) within those contextual layers.
Because of the complexity uncovered in this study, I am hesitant to put forth a model of STEM
outcomes for Latino students based on this dissertation alone. Rather, I offer the following table
that summarizes the ways in which specific institutional pathways can advantage and/or
disadvantage Latinos students who desire to pursue STEM fields. Each of these advantages and
disadvantages are discussed in the three vignettes presented above, however the table provides a
succinct summary of the benefits and detriments of the four identified institutional pathways to
the STEM baccalaureate for Latinos.
240

Table 6.1 (Dis)advantaging Institutional Pathways for Latinos in STEM
Institutional Pathway Advantaging Factors Disadvantaging Factors
Associate Degree at CC to HSI HSI attendance is positively
associated with degree attainment in
“hard” (non-social) science

Largest proportions of Latino STEM
bachelor’s degree holders graduating
with no debt follow this pathway,
which helps them to avoid the
negative effects of debt on graduate
school enrollment

Largest proportion of Latino STEM
baccalaureates enacting a “self
support” financing strategy follow
this pathway

Pathway is located within many
Latino communities in urban areas
and in Latino-rich states (i.e., FL,
CA), making it more accessible

Community college attendance may
decrease chances of B.S. degree
attainment

Perceived to be less prestigious
pathway which may have
implications for graduate school
admissions

Fewer research opportunities
available at community colleges and
HSIs
Associate Degree at CC to non-HSI Significant proportion of Latino
STEM baccalaureates enacted a
“self support” financing strategy in
this pathway
Largest proportion of Latino STEM
bachelor’s degree holders majoring
in social science fields followed this
pathway

Largest proportion of Latino STEM
bachelor’s degree holders finishing
with high relative debt burden were
in this pathway, which negatively
impacts graduate school enrollment

Perceived to be less prestigious
pathway which may have
implications for graduate school
admissions

Fewer research opportunities
available at community colleges

241

Table 6.1, Continued.

Institutional Pathway Advantaging Factors Disadvantaging Factors
HSI HSI attendance positively associated
with degree attainment in “hard”
(non-social) science

Largest proportion of students
enacting a “balanced support”
strategy, i.e., receiving a wide-range
of financial aid, followed this
pathway

Lowest cost option for Latinos
entering four-year institutions
directly leading to lower absolute
debt levels (Santiago &
Cunningham, 2005)

Higher proportions of Latino
students located within HSI
institutional environments (by
definition) may provide academic
and social benefits to Latino STEM
majors

On average, HSIs have higher
proportions of Latino faculty
(Contreras, Malcom, & Bensimon,
2008), which may provide academic
benefits to Latino STEM majors

Perceived to be less prestigious
pathway because HSIs are less
selective, which may have
implications for graduate school
admissions

Fewer research opportunities
available at HSIs as they tend to be
non-research institutions

Non-HSI More research opportunities
available at many non-HSIs
(research and doctoral institutions)

Tend to be more selective and offer
more prestigious pathway to the
STEM degree for Latinos
Large proportion of Latino STEM
bachelor’s degree holders majoring
in social science fields

Largest proportion of Latino STEM
bachelor’s degree holders enacting a
“parental support” strategy (i.e., may
not be taking advantage of full range
of sources of financial aid)

Large proportion of Latino STEM
baccalaureates complete with some
debt which negatively affects
graduate school enrollment

242

Policy Recommendations
The ways in which Latinos simultaneously accumulate advantage and disadvantage
within various institutional and financing contexts is particularly important when determining
how best to address the problem of the underrepresentation of Latinos among STEM degree
holders, faculty, and in the science and engineering workforce. In order to abate the
underrepresentation of Latinos in STEM, steps ought to be taken to eliminate the sources of
disadvantage in students’ institutional and financing contexts, while maintaining the advantaging
aspects of these contexts. Below, I offer two policy proposals to accomplish this aim. The first
proposal is intended to allay the disadvantages associated with the institutional context of HSIs.
The second proposal is intended to mitigate the disadvantages associated with indebtedness in
terms of graduate school enrollment.
Undergraduate ‘Research Study’ Program
As the findings of this study illustrate, Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders
commonly graduate from less selective, Hispanic-serving institutions. This is particularly true for
associate degree earners, non-traditionally aged students, and first-generation college students.
The findings of this study suggest that HSIs are more effective in fostering degree attainment in
“hard” science fields than non-HSIs. For this important STEM educational outcome, HSIs
represent an ‘advantaging’ institutional context for Latinos.
However, HSIs are also considered to be lower status institutions and may constitute a
‘disadvantaging’ context due to their lower levels of prestige, selectivity, and resources (Fry,
2004). The federal government has recognized the importance of HSIs in educating Latino
students, and established the Title V program to funnel more resources to these institutions.
However, despite Title V funds, additional disadvantages remain in the institutional environments
of HSIs, particularly for STEM majors.
243

A primary disadvantage pertains to the opportunities provided to STEM majors to engage
in undergraduate research. Many HSIs are teaching institutions that lack the undergraduate
research opportunities and grant monies to fund student research widely available to Latino
STEM majors at research universities. The lack of research opportunities at HSIs is problematic
because undergraduate research experiences have been shown to increase retention and graduate
school enrollment among underrepresented minority STEM majors (Foertsch, Alexander, &
Penberthy, 1997; Kardash, 2000; Kinkead, 2003; Sabatini, 1997; Seymour et al., 2004).
The next question, then, is how to mitigate the disadvantage posed by the lack of research
opportunities at HSIs, while maintaining the advantaging aspects of their institutional
environments, (i.e., effectiveness in facilitating degree attainment in “hard” science fields)? The
establishment of a federal ‘research-study’ program, akin to the existing ‘work-study’ program,
would enable Latino STEM majors to garner the benefits from research opportunities while
maintaining the advantages offered by Hispanic-serving institutions in terms of STEM degree
outcomes. The primary goal of the program would be to increase the participation, retention, and
graduate school enrollment of Latinos in high-demand STEM fields.
Program details. The proposed federal ‘research study’ program would award up to
$3,000/year to first, second, third, and fourth year Latino students majoring in biological,
physical, or computers sciences, mathematics, or engineering at a not-for-profit, four-year
mainland-U.S. HSIs. To be eligible, students would be required to maintain at least a 3.0 GPA.
The funds, which would be dispensed to students by their Title V-eligible institution, would be
used to support participation in STEM-related research at the student’s home institution, or off-
campus at other universities, non-profit research institutes, or companies within the science and
engineering industry.
244

Similar to the existing federal work-study program, eligible students would be paid
hourly for part-time research positions (e.g., research assistant, lab technician, intern) related to
their STEM program of study. Participants in the STEM federal research study program would be
able to use these funds during the academic year or summer months to maximize opportunities to
engage in research outside of their local community.
The proposed research study program would require that HSIs facilitate the identification
of on- and off-campus research opportunities and establish agreements with off-campus entities.
HSIs with eligible students would receive supplemental funding to help defray the costs of
administering the research study program.
The present study revealed that an average of about 3,500 Latinos were awarded
bachelor’s degrees in the identified fields by HSIs each year. Based on these findings, I estimate
that between 15,000 and 18,000 Latino students would be eligible for the program in a given
academic year. This constitutes an annual cost between $45,000,000 and $54,000,000, not
including administrative costs.
Program benefits. The proposed federal research-study program offers many potential
benefits to Latino STEM majors and HSIs. First, the program would enable STEM majors to gain
undergraduate research experience, mitigating a primary disadvantage associated with attending
an HSI. Second, the proposed program introduces an additional source of non-loan financial aid
for Latino STEM majors at HSIs. Finally, the research-study program will facilitate the
formation of partnerships between HSIs and the science and engineering research community,
which can lead to future collaborative opportunities for these colleges and universities.
The proposed program represents an improvement over the somewhat similar National
SMART [Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent] grant program (U.S. Department of
Education, n.d.). SMART grants provide $4,000 each year to third and fourth year students who
245

are eligible for Pell Grants, are majoring in high demand fields, and have at least a 3.0 GPA.
Unlike the SMART grants, the proposed program would award funds to students who participate
in STEM-related research. Further, the proposed research-study program would provide aid to
eligible students during all years of college, whereas SMART grants provide aid to students
relatively late in their college experience. While allowing lower and upper division Latino STEM
majors to receive research-study funds will make the proposed program more costly, previous
research (Seymour et al., 2004) has shown that engaging undergraduate research early on in the
college career increases retention in STEM fields among underrepresented minority students and
helps these students to establish clear, educational and professional goals.
Though the research study program as proposed would certainly have high levels of
participation because HSIs would identify eligible students and automatically award those funds
to Latino STEM majors who meet the criteria, students ought to be advised of the opportunities
afforded to them by the program prior to enrolling in college. The research study program offers
potential benefits to Latino students who may be wary of enrolling in an HSI due to a perceived
lack of research opportunities. If Latino students and their parents are advised of the potential
benefits of attending an HSI in the form of this new proposed source of financial aid, students
who aspire to major in a STEM field may be attracted to these institutions.
Debt Forgiveness Program for Latinos in STEM who Attend Graduate School
The findings of this study reveal that many Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders
borrow to finance college. However, the debt that they accumulate negatively affects the
likelihood of enrolling in graduate school. In order to mitigate the negative effects of debt on
graduate school enrollment, I offer the following policy proposal aimed at “forgiving” portions of
undergraduate debt upon the completion of educational milestones in graduate school. Increasing
STEM graduate degree completion among U.S. Latinos is a national imperative. With the
246

economy becoming increasingly science and technology-based and Latinos constituting a greater
share of the U.S. population, barriers to graduate school enrollment among Latino STEM
bachelor’s degree holders ought to be removed. The proposed policy would act as an incentive to
encourage Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders to earn graduate degrees.
Program details. In the proposed program, Latinos who enrolled in graduate school
within a year of completing a STEM B.S. degree would have ten percent of their total Federal
Direct Loan balance forgiven after the completion of specified educational milestones in the
graduate school process. To be eligible for the debt forgiveness program, students would have to
maintain a 3.0 GPA, and be enrolled in a master’s or doctoral program in mathematics,
engineering, biological, physical, or computer science at an accredited, not-for-profit institution.
For students enrolled in master’s programs, debt forgiveness would occur at two milestones—
completion of coursework and degree conferral. Students in doctoral programs would have ten
percent of their federal loan balance (principal and interest) forgiven at three milestones—
completion of coursework, advancement to candidacy, and degree conferral.
Eligible students would be enrolled in the proposed program automatically. Training
would be provided to financial aid and academic counselors at the undergraduate level to raise
students’ awareness of the program as they begin to make decisions about graduate school
enrollment. Upon the completion of the specified milestones, students would be required to
submit official certification from their graduate institution to the U.S. Department of Education.
The findings of this study revealed that an average of 13,060 Latinos earned the
bachelor’s degree in the eligible STEM fields each academic year. These students completed the
baccalaureate with an average cumulative indebtedness between $10,000 and $15,000. If each of
these students enrolled in a doctoral program and successfully completed the doctorate, between
$2,710 and $4,065 of debt relief would be provided to each Latino student on average. This
247

corresponds to a maximum total program cost between $35,400,000 and $53,100,000 for each
cohort of Latino STEM degree earners.
Program benefits. The proposed policy would act to remove the disadvantaging effects
of debt on graduate school enrollment among Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders.
Recognizing the barriers that debt can pose to borrowers, the U.S. Congress put income
contingent repayment and debt forgiveness policies in place for degree earners who pursue public
service careers in 2007 (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). In existing debt forgiveness
programs, the remaining loan principal and interest balance is forgiven for individuals in qualified
careers who have made 120, or ten years worth, of payments (U.S. Department of Education,
2008).
Though the premise of this existing debt forgiveness program is positive, there are
several reasons why this approach is not effective at removing the barriers that debt poses to
graduate school enrollment. First, the existing debt forgiveness program only benefits students
after they have spent many years in the labor market. Because the existing program forgives debt
after a period of ten years, it would not lessen the psychosocial burdens associated with debt
(Trent et al., 2006) that may prevent Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders from entering
graduate school. Second, because students must opt into the existing debt forgiveness program
and inadequate training has been provided to graduate financial aid counselors, the program is
being underutilized. A final drawback to the existing debt forgiveness program is that the
forgiven loan balance is considered to be taxable income, leading to an increased tax liability for
program participants.
The proposed program overcomes these shortcomings by removing portions of Latino
STEM degree holders’ debt burden while they are enrolled in a master’s degree or doctoral
program, thereby serving as an incentive for graduate study. In addition, forgiven debt in the
248

proposed program would not be subject to tax in order to avoid introducing potential liabilities to
program participants. The proposed program is specifically targeted at removing the
disadvantages associated with student loan debt in terms of graduate school enrollment.
Latino students will also benefit from a widespread information campaign targeted
toward them as well as financial aid counselors, faculty, and academic support personnel. In order
for the proposed debt forgiveness program to be effective in mitigating the disadvantages
associated with debt, the availability and benefits of the program would be publicized using a
variety of media (e.g., direct mail, internet, advertising in newsletters of STEM professional
organizations, advertising at science-related conferences) prior to and during the time in which
students make decisions about graduate school. As such, those practitioners who are often
involved in students’ graduate school decision-making process would be targeted in addition to
Latino STEM majors in order to increase the visibility of the proposed program.
The above implications for policy and practice emerged from this investigation of the
educational journeys of Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders. Though cumulative
disadvantage may act to constrain college decision-making, this study permits us to understand
the institutional and financial aid pathways traversed by Latinos who successfully earn the STEM
baccalaureate and the ways in which these pathways can be simultaneously disadvantaging and
advantaging in terms of educational outcomes. Finally, the findings also point to several ways in
which postsecondary institutions and policymakers can mitigate the disadvantaging aspects of
institutional and financial aid policy contexts to address the problem of the underrepresentation of
Latinos in STEM.
249

REFERENCES

Adelman, C. (2005). Moving into town—and moving on: The community college in the lives of
traditional-age students. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through
college. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Admon, N. (2006). Hispanic students and the decision to attend community college. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 67 (09), 3355A. (UMI No. 3235692)

Agodini, R., & Dynarski, M. (2004). Are experiments the only option? A look at dropout
prevention programs. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(1), 180–194.

Allen, W. R. (1986). Gender and campus differences in Black student academic performance,
racial attitudes, and college satisfaction. Atlanta, GA: Southern Education Foundation.

Allen, W.R. (1987). Black colleges vs. White colleges: The fork in the road for Black students.
Change, 19, 28–34.

Allen, W. R. (1992). The color of success: African-American college student outcomes at
predominantly white and historically black public colleges and universities. Harvard
Education Review, 62(1): 26–44.

Allen, W. R., Epps, E. G., & Haniff, N. Z. (Eds.). (1991). College in black and white: African
American students in predominantly White and in historically Black public universities.
Albany, NY: SUNY.

Allison, P. (2001). Missing data. (Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Allison, P. (2002). Multiple imputation for missing data: A cautionary tale. Sociological Methods
and Research, 28, 301–309.

Alon, S. (2005). Model mis-specification in assessing the impact of financial aid on academic
outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 46(1), 109–125.

American Council on Education. (2006). Increasing the success of minority students in science
and technology. Washington, DC: Author.

Andersen, E. B. (1994). The statistical analysis of categorical data (3rd. ed.). Berlin: Springer-
Verlag.

Arbona, C., & Nora, A. (2007). The influence of academic and environmental factors on Hispanic
college degree attainment. The Review of Higher Education, 30(3), 247–269.

250

Archer, K. J., & Lemeshow, S., & Hosmer, D. W. (2007). Goodness-of-fit tests for logistic
regression models when data are collected using a complex sampling design.
Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 51(9), 4450–4464.

Archer, L., & Hutchings, M. (2000). “Bettering yourself”? Discourses of risk, cost and benefit in
ethnically diverse, young working-class non-participants’ constructions of higher
education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 21(4), 555–574.

Astin, A. W. (1977). Four critical years. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco:
Jossey Bass.

Attewell, P. A., Lavin, D. E., Domina, T., & Levey, T. (2006). New evidence on college
remediation. Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 8886–924.

Baker, T. L., & Velez, W. (1996). Access to and opportunity in postsecondary education in the
United States: A review. Sociology of Education, 69(SI2), 82–101.

Baum, S., & Saunders, D. (1998). Life after debt: Results of the national student loan survey.
Braintree, MA: Nellie Mae Foundation.

Becker, G. S. (1993). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis with special reference
to education, (3rd Ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Becker, S. O., & Caliendo, M. (2007). Sensitivity analysis for average treatment effects. Stata
Journal, 7(1), 71–83.

Becker, S. O., & Ichino, A. (2002). Estimation of average treatment effects based on propensity
scores, Stata Journal, 2(4), 358–377.

Bedard, K., Herman, D. A. (2005). Who goes to graduate/professional school? The importance of
economic fluctuations, undergraduate field, and ability. Santa Barbara, CA: University of
California, Santa Barbara. Unpublished Manuscript.

Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R. & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of
knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Bensimon, E. M. (2004). The diversity scorecard: A learning approach to institutional change.
Change, 36(1), 45–52.

Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The underestimated significance of practitioner knowledge in the
scholarship of student success. Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 441–469.

Bettinger, E. (2004). How financial aid affects persistence. (Working Paper 10242). Cambridge,
MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

251

Blackwell, J. E. (1998). Faculty issues: The impact on minorities. Review of Higher Education,
11(4): 417–434.

Blau, P. M., & Duncan, O. D. (1967). The American occupational structure. New York: Wiley.

Bohr, L., Pascarella, E. T., Nora, A., & Terenzini, P. T. (1995). Do Black students learn more at
historically Black or predominantly White colleges. Journal of College Student
Development, 41, 381–394.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. (R. Nice, Trans.). In J.G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook
of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood
Press.

Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society, and culture. London:
Sage.

Bowen, W. G., & Bok, D. (1998). The shape of the river. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.

Brainard, S. G., & Carlin, L. (1998). A six-year longitudinal study of undergraduate women in
engineering and science. Journal of Engineering Education, 87(4), 369–375.

Braunstein, A., McGrath, M., & Pescatrice, D. (2000). Measuring the impact of financial factors
on college persistence. Journal of College Student Retention, 2(3), 191–203.

Brazziel, W. F., & Brazziel, M. E. (1997). Distinctives of high producers of minority science and
engineering doctoral starts. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 6(2), 143–153.

Brint, S., & Karabel, J. (1989). The diverted dream: Community colleges and the promise of
educational opportunity in America, 1990–1985. New York: Oxford University Press.

Brewer, D., Eide, E., & Ehrenberg, R. (1999). Does it pay to attend an elite private college?
Cross-cohort evidence on the effects of college type on earnings. Journal of Human
Resources, 34, 104–123.

Brown, M. C., & Davis, J. E. (2001). The historically Black college as social contract, social
capital, and social equalizer. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(1), 31–49.

Brown, S. E., & Santiago, D. (2004, December 27). Latino students gravitate toward HSIs.
Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education, 15(7), 21.

Burdman, P. (2005). The student debt dilemma: Debt aversion as a barrier to college access.
Berkeley, CA: Project on Student Debt, The Institute for College Access and Success,
Inc.

252

Cabrera, A. F., Burkum, K. R., & La Nasa, S. M. (2005). Pathways to a four-year degree:
Determinants of transfer and degree completion. (pp. 155–214). In A. Siedman (Ed.),
College student retention: A formula for student success. Westport, CT: ACE/Praeger
Series on Higher Education.

Cabrera, A. F., La Nasa, S. M., & Burkum, K. R. (2001). Pathways to a four-year degree: The
higher education story of one generation. State College, PA: Center for the Study of
Higher Education, The Pennsylvania State University.

Cabrera, A. F., & Nora, A. (1994). College students’ perceptions of prejudice and discrimination
and their feelings of alienation. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies,
16, 387–409.

Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., & Castañeda, M. B. (1993). College persistence: Structural modeling of
an integrated model of student retention. Journal of Higher Education, 64, 123–139.

Caliendo, M., & Kopeinig, S. (2005). Some practical guidance for the implementation of
propensity score matching. Discussion paper No. 1588. Retrieved on February 6, 2007
from http://ssrn.com/abstract=721907

California State University, Office of the Chancellor (1997, February). Executive Order No. 665:
Determination of Competence in English and Mathematics. Long Beach, CA: California
State University.

Callahan, R., Wilkinson, L., & Muller, C. (2008). Social context and the effect of ESL placement
on Mexican-origin adolescents’ achievement. Social Science Quarterly, 89(1), 177–198.

Carter, D. F. (1999). The impact of institutional choice and environments on African-American
and White students’ degree expectations. Research in Higher Education, 40(1), 17–41.

Castellanos, J., Gloria, A. M., & Kamimura, M. (2005). The Latina/o Pathway to the Ph.D.
Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Chamberlain, M. K. (1988). Women in academe: Progress and prospects. New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.

Chapa, J., & Schink, W. (2006). California community colleges: help or hindrance to Latinos in
the higher education pipeline? New Directions for Community Colleges, 133, 41–50.

Chen, R., & DesJardins, S. L. (2006). Exploring the effects of financial aid on the gap in student
dropout risks by family income. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Unpublished
Manuscript.

Chesler N., & Chesler M. (2002). Gender-informed mentoring strategies for women engineering
scholars: On establishing a caring community. Journal of Engineering Education, 91(1),
49–55.

253

Christie, H., & Munro, M. (2003). The logic of loans: Students’ perception of the costs and
benefits of the student loan. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 24(5), 621–636.

Cofer, J., & Somers, P. (2001). What influences student persistence at two-year colleges?
Community College Review, 29, 56–76.

Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (2003). The American community college. San Francisco: Jossey
Bass.

Cokley, K. (1999). Reconceptualizing the impact of college racial composition on African
American students’ racial identity. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 235–
246.

Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

College Board. (2006). Trends in student aid. (Trends in Higher Education Series). Washington,
DC: Author.

College Board. (2007). Trends in student aid. (Trends in Higher Education Series). Washington,
DC: Author.

Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering. (2004). Broadening participation
in America’s science and engineering workforce. (CEOSE 04–01). Washington, DC:
Author.

Contreras, F. E., Malcom, L. E., & Bensimon, E. M. (2008). Hispanic-serving institutions:
Closeted identity and the production of equitable outcomes for Latino/a students. In M.
Gasman, B. Baez, & C. S. V. Turner (Eds.), Understanding minority serving institutions
(pp. 71–90). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Cooper, C. R. (2002). Five bridges along students’ pathways to college: A development blueprint
of families, teachers, counselors, mentors, and peers in the Puente project. Educational
Policy, 16(4), 607–622.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dale, S., & Krueger, A. (2002). Estimating the payoff to attending a more selective college: an
application of selection on unobservables. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117,
1491–1528.

De La Rosa, M. L., & Hernandez-Gravelle, H. (2007, March). The strategy of debt aversion: How
Hispanic students pay for college. Paper presented at the meeting of the American
Association of Hispanics in Higher Education, Inc., Costa Mesa, CA.

254

de los Santos, A. G., & de los Santos, G. E. (2005). Latina/os and community colleges: A
pathway to graduate studies? In J. Castellanos, A.M. Gloria, & M. Kamimura (Eds.), The
Latina/o Pathway to the Ph.D. (pp. 37–53). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

DesJardins, S. L., Ahlburg, D. A., & McCall, B. P. (2006). An integrated model of application,
admission, enrollment, and financial aid. Journal of Higher Education, 77(3), 381–429.

DesJardins, S. L., Kim, D., & Rzonca, C. S. (2002). A nested analysis of factors affecting
bachelor’s degree completion. Journal of College Student Retention, 4(4), 407–435.

DesJardins, S. L., McCall, B. P., Ahlburg, D. A., & Moye, M. J. (2002). Adding a timing light to
the “toolbox”. Research in Higher Education, 43(1), 83-114.

DiPrete, T. A. & Eirich, G. M. (2006). Cumulative advantage as a mechanism for inequality: A
review of theoretical and empirical development. Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 271–
97.

Dougherty, K. J. (1994). The contradictory college: Conflicting origins, impacts, and futures of
the community college. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Dougherty, K.J., & Kienzl, G.S. (2006). It’s not enough to get through the open door: Inequalities
by social background in transfer from community colleges to four-year colleges.
Teachers College Record, 108(3), 452–487.

Dowd, A. C. (2004, May 12). Income and financial aid effects on persistence and degree
attainment in public colleges. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(21) Retrieved April
4, 2007, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n21/

Dowd, A. C. (in press). Dynamic interactions and intersubjectivity: Challenges to causal
modeling in studies of college student debt. Review of Educational Research.

Dowd, A. C., Bensimon, E. M., Gabbard, G., Singleton, S., Macias, E., Dee, J., et al. (2006).
Transfer access to elite colleges and universities in the United States: Threading the
needle of the American dream. Boston and Los Angeles: University of Massachusetts
Boston and the University of Southern California.

Dowd, A. C., Cheslock, J., & Melguizo, T. (in press). Transfer access from community colleges
and the distribution of elite higher education. The Journal of Higher Education.

Dowd, A. C., & Coury, T. (2006). The effect of loans on the persistence and attainment of
community college students. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 33–62.

ECMC Group Foundation. (2003). Cultural barriers to incurring debt: An exploration of
borrowing and impact on access to postsecondary education. Santa Fe, NM: Author.

255

Ehrenberg, R.G., & Rothstein, D.S. (1993). Do historically black institutions of higher education
confer unique advantages on black students: An initial analysis. Working Paper No.
4356. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Eide, E., Brewer, D., & Ehrenberg, R. (1998). Does it pay to attend an elite private college?
Evidence on the effect of undergraduate college quality on graduate school attendance.
Economics of Education Review, 17, 371–376.

Elman, C., & O’Rand, A. (2004). The race is to the swift: Socioeconomic origins,
adult education, and wage attainment. American Journal of Sociology, 110, 123–160.

Etzkowitz, H., Kemelgor, C., Neuschatz, M., & Uzzi, B. (1994). Barriers to women’s
participation in academic science and engineering. In W. Pearson & A. Fechter (Eds.),
Who will do science? Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Fenske, R.H., Porter, J.D., & DuBrock, C.P. (2000). Tracking financial aid and persistence of
women, minority, and needy students in science, engineering, and mathematics. Research
in Higher Education, 41(1), 67–94.

Fleming, J. (1984). Blacks in college. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Flores, S.M., Horn, C.L., Crisp, G. (2006). Community colleges, public policy, and Latino
student opportunity. New Directions for Community Colleges, 133, 71–80.

Florida Department of Education. (n.d.). Frequently asked questions: Community colleges.
Retrieved March 12, 2008, from http://www.fldoe.org/faq/default.asp?Dept=135&
ID=65#Q65

Florida Department of Education. (2005). Access challenges and Florida’s community college
and workforce education system. Tallahassee, FL: Author.

Flyer, F. (1997). The influence of higher moments of earnings distributions on career decisions.
Journal of Labor Economics, 15(4), 689–713.

Foertsch, J., Alexander, B. B., & Penberthy, D. (1997). Summer research opportunity programs
(SROPs) for minority undergraduates: A longitudinal study of program outcomes, 1986–
1996. Madison: The Lead Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Fosnacht, K. J., & Santos, J. L. (2008, March). The influence of debt burden on career sector
choice: An exploratory analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New York.

Freeman, K.E., Perna, L.W., & King, N. (1999). UNCF Statistical Report: 1998. Fairfax, VA:
Frederick D. Patterson Research Institute.

Frölich, M. (2004). Finite sample properties of propensity-score matching and weighting
estimators. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(1), 77–90.
256

Fry, R. (2002). Latinos in higher education: Many enroll, Too few graduate. Pew Hispanic
Center: Washington, DC.

Fry, R. (2004). Latino youth finishing college: The role of selective pathways. Pew Hispanic
Center: Washington, DC.

Fuerstenau, C. (2002, April). Valuing context: The impact of social capital on students’ college
choice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans, LA.

Gándara, P. (2002). A study of high school Puente: What we have learned about preparing Latino
youth for postsecondary education. Educational Policy, 16(4), 474–495.

Gándara, P., & Bial, D. (2001). Paving the way to postsecondary education: K–12 intervention
programs for underrepresented youth. Washington, DC: National Postsecondary
Education Cooperative, U.S. Department of Education.

Gándara, P., Larson, K., Mehan, H., & Rumberger, R.W. (1998). Capturing Latino students in the
academic pipeline. CLPP Policy Report. University of California, Berkeley:
Chicano/Latino Policy Project.

Goldrick-Rab, S. (2006). Following their every move: An investigation of social-class differences
in college pathways. Sociology of Education, 2006, 79(2), 61–79.

González, N., & Moll, L. (2002). Cruzando el Puente: Building bridges to funds of knowledge.
Educational Policy, 16(4), 623–641.

Goodman, L. A. (2002). Latent class analysis: The empirical study of latent types, latent
variables, and latent structures. In J. A. Hagenaars & A. L. McCutcheon (Eds.), Applied
latent class analysis (pp. 3–55). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Grodsky, E. S. (2002). Constrained opportunity and student choice in American higher education.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 63 (08), 3008A. (UMI No. 3060591)

Grubb, W.N. (1991). The decline of community college transfer rates: Evidence from national
longitudinal surveys. Journal of Higher Education, 62, 184–217.

Grubb, W.N., Lara, C.M., Valdez, S. (2002). Counselor, coordinator, monitor, mom: The roles of
counselors in the Puente program. Educational Policy, 16(4), 547–571.

Guess, A. (2007, May 30). Student aid, opportunity and Latinos. Insider Higher Ed. Retrieved
September 20, 2007, from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/05/30/finance

Guo, S., Barth, R., & Gibbons, C. (2004). Introduction to propensity score matching: A new
device for program evaluation, Society for Social Work Research. New Orleans.

257

Hall, R. R., & Sandler, B.R. (1982). The classroom climate: A chilly one for women. Project on
the Status and Education of Women. Washington, DC: Association of American
Colleges.

Hallinan, M. T. (2000). On the linkages between sociology of race and ethnicity and sociology of
education. In M. T. Hallinan (Ed.), Handbook of the Sociology of Education (pp. 65–84).
New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Ham, J.C., Li, X., & Reagan, P.B. (2006, February). Propensity score matching, a distance-based
measure of migration, and the wage growth of young men (IEPR working paper 05.13).
Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California, Institute of Economic Policy
Research.

Hao, L. (2006). Assessing equitable postsecondary educational outcomes for Hispanics in
California and Texas. Dissertation Abstracts International, 67 (10), 3732A. (UMI No.
3237151)

Harvey, W.B., & Williams, L.E. (1989). Historically black colleges: Models for increasing
minority representation. Education and Urban Society, 21, 328–340.

Haro, R. (2004). Programs and strategies to increase Latino students’ educational attainment.
Education and Urban Society, 36(2), 205–222.

Heckman, J. (1979). Sample selection bias as specification error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153–161.

Heller, D. E. (Ed.). (2002). Condition of access: Higher education for lower income students.
Westport, CT: American Council on Education and Praeger Publishers.

Hippensteel, D. G., St. John, E. P., & Starkey, J. B. (1996). Influence of tuition and student aid on
within-year persistence by adults in two-year colleges. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 20, 233–242.

Hobbs, F., & Stoops, N. (2002). Demographic trends in the 20th century. (Census 2000 Special
Reports, Series CENSR–4). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Holland, D.C., & Eisenhart, M.A. (1992). Educated in romance: Women, achievement, and
college culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Horn, L., Wei, C. C., Berker, A. (2002). What students pay for college: Changes in net price of
college attendance between 1992–93 and 1999–2000 (NCES 2002174). Washington,
DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Hossler, D., Braxton, J., & Coopersmith, G. (1989). Understanding student college choice. In J.
C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. V, pp. 231–
288). New York: Agathon Press.

Hossler, D., & Gallaher, K. S. (1987). Studying college choice: A three-phase model and the
implications for policy-makers. College and University, 2, 207–221.
258

Hossler, D., Schmit, J., & Vesper, N. (1999). Going to college: How social, economic, and
educational factors influence, the decisions students make. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press.

Hoxby, C. M. (Ed.). (2004). College choices: The economics of where to go, when to go, and how
to pay for it. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hu, S., & St. John, E.P. (2001). Student persistence in a public higher education system:
Understanding racial and ethnic differences. The Journal of Higher Education, 72(3),
265–286.

Hurtado, S. (2001). Linking diversity and education purpose: How diversity affects the classroom
environment and student development. (pp.187–203). In G. Orfield (Ed.), Diversity
Challenged: Evidence on the Impact of Affirmative Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Publishing Group.

Hurtado, S. & Carter, D.F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus
racial climate on Latino students’ sense of belonging. Sociology of Education, 70(4),
324–345.

Hurtado, S., Inkelas, S., Briggs, C., & Rhee, B. (1997). Differences in college access and choice
among racial/ethnic groups: Identifying continuing barriers. Research in Higher
Education, 38(1), 43–75.

Hurtado, S., & Ponjuan, L. (2005). Latino educational outcomes and the campus climate. Journal
of Hispanic Higher Education, 4(3), 235–251.

Ichino, A., Mealli, F., & Nannicini, T. (2006). From temporary help jobs to permanent
employment: What can we learn from matching estimators and their sensitivity. IZA
Discussion Paper No. 2149. Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor.

Immerwahr, J. (2003). With diploma in hand: Hispanic high school seniors talk about their
future. (National Center Report #03–2). San Jose, CA: National Center for Public Policy
and Higher Education, and Public Agenda.

Ishitani, T. T., & DesJardins, S. L. (2002). A longitudinal investigation of dropout from college in
the United States. Journal of College Student Retention, 4(2), 173–201.

Jang, D., & Lin, X. (2007). Evaluation of the National Survey of Recent College Graduates
(NSRCG) postsecondary institution sample. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy
Research, Inc.

Jones, L, Castellanos, J., & Cole, D. (2002). Examining the ethnic minority student experience at
predominantly White institutions: A case study. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education,
1, 19–39.

259

Kane, M., Beals, C., Valeau, E. J., & Johnson, M. J. (2004). Fostering success among
traditionally underrepresented student groups: Hartnell College's approach to
implementation of the Math, Engineering, and Science Achievement (MESA) Program.
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28, 17-26.

Kane, T. J., & Rouse, C. E. (1995). Labor-market returns to two- and four-year college. American
Economic Review, 85(3), 600–614.

Kardash, C. M. (2000). Evaluation of an undergraduate research experience: Perceptions of
undergraduate interns and their faculty mentors. Journal of Educational Psychology,
92(1), 191–201.

Karabel, J. (1972). Community colleges and social stratification. Harvard Educational Review,
42, 521–562.

Kim D. (2004). The effect of financial aid on students’ college choice: Differences by racial
groups. Research in Higher Education, 45(1), 43–70.

Kim, D., & Eyermann, T.S. (2006). Undergraduate borrowing and its effects on plans to attend
graduate school prior to and after the 1992 Higher Education Act amendments. NASFAA
Journal of Student Financial Aid, 36(2), 5–21.

Kim, M.M. (2002). Historically Black vs. White institutions: Academic development among
Black students. Review of Higher Education, 25(4), 385–407.

Kinkead, J. (2003). Learning through inquiry: An overview of undergraduate research. New
Directions for Teaching and Learning, 93, 5–17.

Kinzie, J., Palmer, M., Hayek, J., Hossler, D., Jacob, S., & Cummings, H. (2004). Fifty years of
college choice: Social political and institutional influences on the decision-making
process. Indianapolis, Indiana: Lumina Foundation for Education: New Agenda Series.

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates. (2005). Student success in
college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Kurlaender, M. (2006). Choosing community college: Factors affecting Latino college choice.
New Directions for Community Colleges, 133, 7–16.

Kurlaender, M., & Long, B.T. (2007, April). Do community colleges serve as a viable pathway to
a baccalaureate degree? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Laden, B.V. (1999). Socializing and mentoring college students of color: The Puente project as an
exemplary celebratory socialization model. Peabody Journal of Education, 74(2), 55–74.

260

Laden, B. V. (2000). Hispanic-serving two-year institutions: What account for their high transfer
rates? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher
Education, Sacramento.

Laden, B. V. (2004). Hispanic-serving institutions: What are they? Where are they? Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 28, 181–198.

Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.

Lavin, D. E., & Hyllegard, D. (1996). Changing the odds: Open admissions and the life changes
of the disadvantaged. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Ledman, R.E., Miller, M., & Brown, D.R. (1995, October). Successful women and women’s
colleges: Is there an intervening variable in the reported relationship?, Sex Roles: A
Journal of Research, 489–97.

Leigh, D. E., & Gill, A. M. (2007). Do community colleges respond to local needs? Evidence
from California. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.

Leuven, E., & Sianesi, B. (2003). PSMATCH2: Stata module to perform full Mahalanobis and
propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing
[Computer software]. Retrieved December 11, 2007, from http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/
bocode/s432001.html

Long, B. T., & Riley, E. K. (2007). Financial aid: A broken bridge to college access? Harvard
Educational Review, 77(1), 39–63.

Long, J. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

MacDonald, V.M., Botti, J.M., & Clark, L.H. (2007). From visibility to autonomy: Latinos in
higher education in the U.S., 1965–2005. Harvard Educational Review, 77(4), 474–504.

Malcom, L. (2006a, November). Exploring the effects of community college attendance on the
educational, professional, and economic outcomes of scientists and engineers. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education,
Anaheim, California.

Malcom, L. (2006b). Moving students forward: The Pasadena City College MESA Program
director as an institutional agent. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California.
Unpublished Manuscript.

Manski, C. F., & Wise, A. D. (1983). College choice in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9), 954–969.
261

McCormick, A. C. (2003). Swirling and double-dipping: New patterns of student attendance and
their implications for higher education. New Directions for Higher Education, 121.
13–24.

McCutcheon, A. L. (2002). Basic concepts and procedures in single- and multiple-group latent
class analysis. In J. A. Hagenaars & A. L. McCutcheon (Eds.), Applied latent class
analysis (pp. 56–89). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

McDonough, P. M. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools structure
opportunity. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

McDonough, P. M. (2004, July). The impact of advice on price: Evidence from research.
Retrieved March 15, 2007, from http://www.teri.org/researchstudies/financial-aid-
impact.asp

McDonough, P. M., Antonio, A. L., & Trent, J. W. (1997). Black students, Black colleges: An
African American college choice model. Journal for a Just and Caring Education, 3, 9–
36.

McDonough, P. M., & Calderone, S. (2006). The meaning of money: Perceptual differences
between college counselors and low-income families about college costs and financial
aid. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(12), 1703–1718.

Melguizo, T. (in press). Are community colleges an alternative path for Hispanic students to
attain a bachelor's degree? Teachers College Record.

Melguizo, T., Kienzl, G.E., & Alfonso, M. (2007, April). Evaluating the Effect of Community
College Attendance on Educational Attainment: Application of Propensity Score
Matching Methods. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Foundation, Chicago, IL.

Merton, R.K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.

Merton, R.K. (1988). The Matthew effect in science, II: Cumulative advantage and the
symbolism of intellectual property. Isis, 79(4), 606–623.

MESA Community College Program. (n.d.). Mesa Community College Program. Retrieved April
4, 2007 from http://www.ucop.edu/mesa/staff/Staff%20Only/
MESA_Community_College_Program.pdf

Millett, C.M. (2003). How undergraduate loan debt affects application and enrollment in graduate
or first professional school. The Journal of Higher Education, 74(4), 386–427.

Millimet, D. (2001). What is the difference between 'endogeneity' and 'sample selection' bias?
Retrieved September 16, 2002, from http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/stat/bias.html

262

Minicozzi, A. (2005). The short term effect of educational debt on job decisions. Economics of
Education Review, 24(4), 415–430.

Monaghan, P. (2001). Researchers note correlation between students' race and willingness to
take on college loans. Retrieved April 17, 2001, from http://chronicle.com

Monks, J. (2000). The returns to individual and college characteristics: evidence from the national
longitudinal survey of youth. Economics of Education Review, 19, 279–289.

Morrow, R., & Torres, C. (1995). Social theory and education. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Murphy, S. H. (1994). The impact of student debt on post-baccalaureate decisions: A focus on
educational choice. Dissertation Abstracts International, 55 (05), 1158A.

Muthén, B. O. (2001). Second-generation structural equation modeling with combination of
categorical and continuous latent variables: New opportunities for latent class/latent
growth modeling. In L. M. Collins & A. G. Sayer (Eds.), New methods for the analysis
for change (pp. 291–322). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Myers, D. (2002). Demographic dynamism in Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, and Washington
D.C. In M.J. Dear (Ed.), From Chicago to L.A.: Making sense of urban theory (pp. 21–
53). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Myers, D. (2007). Immigrants and boomers: Forging a new social contract for the future of
America. New York: Russell Sage.

National Center of Education Statistics. (2002). Digest of education statistics, 2000. Washington,
DC: Author.

National Center of Education Statistics. (2005). Digest of education statistics, 2005. Washington,
DC: Author.

National Center of Education Statistics. (2006). Placing college graduation rates in context: How
4-year college graduation rates vary with selectivity and the size of low-income
enrollment (NCES 2007161). Washington, DC: Author.

National Center of Education Statistics. (2007). Digest of education statistics, 2006 (NCES
2007017). Washington DC: Author.

National Research Council. (1999). Harnessing science and technology for America’ economic
future: National and regionally priorities. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2005). Enhancing the community college pathway to engineering
careers. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

263

National Science Foundation. (1996). Shaping the future: New expectations for undergraduate
education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (NSF 96-139).
Washington, DC: Author.

National Science Foundation. (1999). What is the level of federal science and engineering support
to historically black colleges and universities? Issue Brief (NSF 99–356). Arlington, VA.

National Science Foundation. (2002). Science and engineering degrees, by race/ethnicity of
recipients: 1991–2002 (NSF 02–329). Arlington, VA.

National Science Foundation. (2005). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science
and engineering: 2004 (NSF 04–317). Arlington, VA.

National Science Foundation. (2006). Investing in America’s future (NSF 06–48). Arlington, VA.

Nettles, M. T. (1989). Comparing the backgrounds, educational experiences and outcomes of
Black, Hispanic, and White doctoral students. College Park, MD: National Center for
Postsecondary Governance and Finance.

Nettles, M.T., Thoeny, A.R., & Gosman, E.J. (1986). Comparative and predictive analyses of
black and white students’ college achievement and experiences. Journal of Higher
Education, 57, 289–328.

Nora, A. (2002). A theoretical and practice view of student adjustment and academic
achievement. In W. Tierney & L. Hagedorn (Eds.), Increasing access to college:
Extending possibilities for all students (pp. 41–56). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Nora, A. (2004). The role of habitus and cultural capital in choosing a college, transitioning from
high school to higher education, and persisting in college among minority and non-
minority students to college. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 3(2), 180–208.

Nora, A., Barlow, L., & Crisp, G. (2006). Examining the tangible and psychosocial benefits of
financial aid with student access, engagement, and degree attainment. American
Behavioral Scientist, 49, 1636–1651.

Nora, A., & Cabrera, A.F. (1996). The role of perceptions of prejudice and discrimination on the
adjustment of minority students to college. Journal of Higher Education, 67(2), 120–148.

Nora, A., Cabrera, A.F., Hagedorn, L.S., & Pascarella, E. (1996). Differential effects of academic
and social experiences on college-related outcomes across different ethnic and gender
groups at four-year institutions, Research in Higher Education, 37(4), 427–452.

Nora, A., & Horvath, F. (1989). Financial assistance: Minority enrollments and persistence.
Education and Urban Society, 21(3), 299–311.

Olivas, M. A. (1985). Financial aid packaging policies: Access and ideology. Journal of Higher
Education, 56(4), 462–475.
264

Olivas, M. A. (1986). Financial aid and self-reports by disadvantaged students: The importance of
being earnest. Research in Higher Education, 25(3), 245–252.

Olivas, M. A. (2005). Higher education as “place”: Location, race, and college attendance
policies. Review of Higher Education, 28(2), 169–189.

Orazem, P. F., & Mattila, J. P. (1991). Human capital, uncertain wage distributions, and
occupational and educational choices. International Economic Review, 32(1), 103–122.

Osei-Kofi, N. & Rendón, L. (2005). Latinos, higher education and the “needs” of the market.
Latino Studies, 3, 249–260.

Pachon, H. P., & Zarate, M. E. (2005). Perspectives of college costs, benefits, and financial aid
among California Latino youth. Los Angeles, CA: The Tomás Rivera Policy Institute and
the Sallie Mae Fund.

Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from
twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (2003). How college affects students: A third decade of research.
San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Paulsen, M. (1990). College choice: Understanding student enrollment behavior. ASHE-ERIC
Higher Education Report No. 6. Washington, DC: George Washington University,
School of Education and Human Development.

Paulsen, M. B., & St. John, E. P. (2002). Social class and college costs: Examining the financial
nexus between college choice and persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 73(2), 189–
236.

Pearson, W., & Pearson, L.C. (1985). Baccalaureate origins of Black American scientists: A
cohort analysis. Journal of Negro Education, 54(1), 24–34.

Peng, C.J., So, T.H., Stage, F.K. & St. John, E.P. (2002). The use and interpretation of logistic
regression in higher education journals: 1988–1998. Research in Higher Education,
43(3), 259–293.

Perna, L. W. (2000). Differences in the decision to attend college among African Americans,
Hispanics, and Whites. Journal of Higher Education, 71(2), 117–141.

Perna, L. W. (2001). The contribution of historically Black colleges and universities to the
preparation of African American for faculty careers. Research in Higher Education,
42(3), 267–294.

265

Perna, L. W. (2004, July). Impact of student aid program design, operations, and marketing on
the formation of family college-going plans and resulting college-going behaviors of
potential students. Boston, MA: The Education Resources Institute, Inc. (TERI).

Perna, L. W. (2006a). Studying college access and choice: A proposed conceptual model. In J.C.
Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. XXI, pp. 99–
157). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Perna, L.W. (2006b). Understanding the relationship between information about college prices
and financial aid and students’ college-related behaviors. American Behavioral Scientist,
49(12), 1620–1635.

Perna, L. W., & Titus, M. A. (2004). Understanding differences in the choice of college attended:
The role of state public policies. Review of Higher Education, 27(4), 501–525.

Person, A. E., & Rosenbaum, J. E. (2006). Chain enrollment and college enclaves: Benefits and
drawbacks of Latino college students’ enrollment decisions. New Directions for
Community Colleges, 133, 51–60.

Phillippe, K.A., & Gonzalez Sullivan, L. (2005). National profile of community colleges: Trends
and statistics, 4
th
edition. Washington, DC: Community College Press.

Pollock, M. (2008). Because of race: How Americans debate harm and opportunity in our
schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review
of Sociology, 24, 1–24.

Price, D.V. (2004). Borrowing inequality: Race, class, and student loans. Boulder, CO: Lynne
Rienner.

Puente Project. (n.d.). Welcome to the Puente project. Retrieved April 4, 2007 from
http://www.puente.net/

Redd, K.E. (1998). Historically Black colleges and universities: Making a comeback. New
Directions for Higher Education, 102, 33–43.

Redd, K.E. (2005). Data sources: Financial aid for minority students in STEM fields. CGS
Communicator, August/September, 4–5.

Redmond, C., Clinedinst, M., & O’Brien, C. (2000). Education the emerging majority: The role
of minority-serving colleges and universities in confronting America’s teacher crisis.
Washington, DC: Alliance for Equity in Higher Education, Institute for Higher
Education Policy.

Rendón, L.I. (1992). From the barrio to the academy: Revelations of a Mexican American
“scholarship girl.” New Directions for Community College, 20(4), 55–64.
266

Rendón, L.I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of learning and
student development. Innovative Higher Education, 19(1), 33–51.

Rendón, L. I. (1995, March). Facilitating retention and transfer for first-generation students in
community colleges. Paper presented at the New Mexico Institute: Rural Community
College Initiative, Espanola, NM. (ED 383 369)

Rendón, L.I. (2002). Community college Puente: A validating model of education. Educational
Policy, 16(4), 642–667.

Rendón, L. I., & Garza, H. (1996). Closing the gap between two- and four-year institutions. In L.
I. Rendón & R.O. Hope (Eds.), Educating a new majority: Transforming America's
educational system for diversity (pp. 289–308). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Rendón, L. I., Jalomo, R. E., & Nora, A. (2000). Theoretical consideration in the study of
minority student retention in higher education. In J. Braxton (Ed.) Rethinking the
departure puzzle: New theory and research on college student retention (pp. 127–156).
Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Rosenbaum, P. R. (1984). From association to causation in observational studies: The role of tests
of strongly ignorable treatment assignment. Journal of the American Statistical
Association, 79(385), 41–48.

Rosenbaum, P. R. (2002). Observational studies. New York: Springer.

Rosenbaum, P.R., & Rubin, D.B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational
studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 70, 41–55.

Sabatini, D. A. (1997). Teaching and research synergism: The undergraduate research experience.
Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 123, 98–102.

Sable, J., & Garofano, A. (2007). Public elementary and secondary school student enrollment,
high school completions, and staff from the common core of data: School year 2005–06
(NCES 2007–352). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics.

Santiago, D. A. (2006). Inventing Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs): The basics. Washington,
DC: Excelencia in Education.

Santiago, D. A., & Cunningham, A. F. (2005). How Latino students pay for college: Patterns of
financial aid in 2003–2004: Excelencia in Education and the Institute for Higher
Education Policy.

Sax, L.J., Astin, A.W., Korn, W.S., & Mahoney, K.M. (1997). The American freshman: National
norms for fall 1997. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.

267

Schapiro, M. O., O'Malley, M. P., & Litten, L. H. (1991). Progression to graduate school from the
'elite' colleges and universities. Economics of Education Review, 10(3), 227–244.

Schrag, F. (1992). In defense of positivist research paradigms. Educational Researcher, 21(5),
5–8.

Schwab, J. J. (1978). Science, liberal education, and curriculum: Selected essays. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Sebrechts, J. (2000, Spring/Summer). Nurturing scientists at women’s colleges. Trinity Magazine,
Retrieved March 27, 2007 from http://www.trinitydc.edu/news_events/mags/
winspr00/2nursci.html

Sewell, W. H., Hauser, R. M., & Wolf, W. C. (1986). Sex, schooling and occupational status.
American Journal of Sociology, 86, 551–583.

Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N.M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the
sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Seymour, E., Hunter, A., Laursen, S. L., & Deantoni, T. (2004). Establishing the benefits of
research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a three-year
study. Science Education, 88, 493–594.

Sianesi, B. (2001, May). Implementing propensity score matching estimators with STATA.
Prepared for UK Stata Group, VII Meeting: University College London and Institute for
Fiscal Studies.

Small, K. A., & Hsiao, C. (1985). Multinomial logit specification tests. International Economic
Review, 26, 619–627.

Smith, D.G., Wolf, L.E., & Morrison, D.E. (1995). Paths to success: Factors related to the impact
of women’s colleges. The Journal of Higher Education, 66, 245–266.

Solórzano, D. G. (1995). The baccalaureate origins of Chicana and Chicano doctorates in the
social sciences. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 17(1), 3–32.

Somerton, W.H., Smith, M., Finnell, P., & Fuller, T. (1994). The MESA Way: A Success Story of
Nurturing Minorities for Math/Science-Based Careers. San Francisco: Caddo Gap Press.

St. John, E. P. (2006). Contending with financial inequality and academic success: Rethinking the
contributions of qualitative research to the policy discourse on college students. American
Behavioral Scientist, 49(12), 1604–1619.

St. John, E. P., Andrieu, S., Oescher, J., & Starkey, J. B. (1994). The influence of student aid on
within-year persistence by traditional college-age students in four-year colleges.
Research in Higher Education, 35(4), 455–480.

268

St. John, E. P. (2003). Refinancing the college dream: Access, equal opportunity, and justice for
taxpayers. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

St. John, E. P., Paulsen, M. B., & Carter, D. F. (2005). Diversity, college costs, and
postsecondary opportunity: An examination of the financial nexus between college
choice and persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 76(5), 545–569.

St. John, E. P., & Starkey, J. B. (1994). The influence of costs on persistence by traditional
college-age students in community colleges. Community College Journal of Research
and Practice, 18, 201–213.

St. John, E. P., & Starkey, J. B. (1995). An alternative to net price: Assessing the influence of
prices and subsidies on within-year persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 66(2),
156–186.

Stage, F.K. (Ed.). (2007). Using quantitative data to answer critical questions: New Directions
for Institutional Research, 133.

Stage, F. K., & Hubbard, S. M. (2008, March). Producers of future women and minority
scientists: Comprehensive and doctoral institutions. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.

Stampen, J. O., & Cabrera, A. F. (1988). The targeting and packaging of student aid and its effect
on attrition. Economics of Education Review, 7(1), 29–46

Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2001). Manufacturing hope and despair: The school and kin support
networks of U.S. Mexican youth. New York: Teachers College Press.

Stearns, C., & Watanabe, S. (2002). Hispanic-serving institutions: Statistical trends from 1990–
1999. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES 2002–051). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.

Strassburger, J. (1995, May). Embracing undergraduate research. American Association of Higher
Education (AAHE) Bulletin, 47(9), 3–5.

Suitts, S. (2003). Fueling education reform: Historically black colleges are meeting a national
science imperative. Cell Biology Education, 2, 205–206.

Swail, S.W. (2000). Preparing America’s disadvantaged for college: Programs that increase
college opportunity. New Directions for Institutional Research, 107, 85–101.

Swail, W. S., Cabrera, A. F., and Lee, C. (2004). Latino Youth and the Pathway to College.
Washington, DC: Educational Policy Institute, Inc.

Swail, S. W., Cabrera, F. A., Lee, C., & Williams, A. (2005). Latino students and the educational
pipeline: Pathways to the bachelor's degree for Latino students: Educational Policy
Institute.
269

Teranishi, R., & Briscoe, K. (2006). Social capital and the racial stratification of college
opportunity. In J.C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research
(Vol. XXI, pp. 591–614). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

The Institute for College Access and Success (2007). Economic diversity of colleges. Retrieved
January 11, 2008, from http://www.economicdiversity.org/

Tidball, M.E. (1986). Baccalaureate origins of recent natural science doctorates. Journal of
Higher Education, 57(6), 606–620.

Tienda, M. & Niu, S. X. (2006). Capitalizing on segregation, pretending neutrality: College
admissions and the Texas top 10% law. American Law and Economics Review, 8(2),
312–346.

Tierney, W.G. (2002). Cautionary tales: Evaluation and college preparation programs. In W.G.
Tierney & L. Hagedorn (Eds.), Extending their reach: Strategies for increasing access to
college. Albany, NY: SUNY.

Tierney, W. G., & Venegas, K. M. (2006). Fictive kin and social capital: The role of peer groups
in applying and paying for college. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(12), 1687–1702.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Titus, M. A. (2000, May). The financing of success in higher education: Student aid,
expectations, and the persistence of first-time, full-time freshman. Paper presented at the
Association for Institutional Research, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Titus, M. A. (2007). Detecting selection bias, using propensity score matching, and estimating
treatment effects: An application to the private returns to a master's degree. Research in
Higher Education, 48(4), 487–521.

Tomás Rivera Policy Institute. (2004). Caught in the financial aid information divide: A national
survey of Latino perspectives on financial aid. Los Angeles, CA: Author.

Tornatzky, L.G., Cutler, R., & Lee, J. (2002). College knowledge: What Latino parents need to
know and why they don't know it. Los Angeles, CA: The Tomás Rivera Policy Institute.

Tornatzky, L.G., Lee, J., Mejia, O., & Turant, S. (2003). College choices among Latinos: Issues
of leaving home (Policy Brief). Los Angeles, CA: Tomás Rivera Policy Institute.

Trent, W., & Hill, J. (1994). The contributions of historically black colleges and universities to
the production of African American scientists and engineers. In W. Pearson, Jr., & A.
Fechter (Eds.), Who will do science? Educating the next generation, (pp. 68–80).
Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

270

Trent, W. T., Lee, H. S., & Owens-Nicholson, D. (2006). Perceptions of financial aid among
students of color: Examining the role(s) of self-concept, locus of control, and
expectations. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(12), 1739–1759.

Tsapogas, J. (2004). The role of community college in the education of recent science and
engineering graduates. (NSF 04–315). National Science Foundation: Arlington, VA.

Tsapogas, J., & Cahalan, M. (1996, May). Incidence of and factors related to progression to
graduate school among recent science and engineering bachelor's degree recipients:
Results from a national study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association
of Institutional Research, Albuquerque, NM.

University of California. (n.d.). Transfer Q&A: Campus selection practices. Retrieved March 30,
2008 from http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/educators/counselors/adminfo/
transfer/advising/answers/practices.html

University of California, Los Angeles, (2004). Academic Achievement Program Review. Los
Angeles, CA.

U.S. Census Bureau. (1990). 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Tape File 3;
Matrices generated by Lindsey Malcom using American Factfinder
http://factfinder.census.gov.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2004). U.S. interim projections by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin.
Retrieved July 15, 2005, from http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj/

U.S. Census Bureau. (2005) American Community Survey; Matrices generated by Lindsey
Malcom using American Factfinder http://factfinder.census.gov.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2007). American Community Survey; Matrices generated by Lindsey
Malcom using American Factfinder http://factfinder.census.gov.

U.S. Department of Education. (2006a). What Works Clearinghouse: Study design classification.
Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.

U.S. Department of Education. (2006b). What Works Clearinghouse: Study review standards.
Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.

U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Title V developing Hispanic-serving institutions program:
Definition of an HSI. Retrieved January 13, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/
programs/idueshsi/definition.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2008, Winter). Loan forgiveness for public service employees.
Retrieved April 17, 2008, from http://studentaid.ed.gov/students/attachments/
siteresources/LoanForgivenessMarch18.pdf

271

U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). The National Science & Mathematics Access to Retain
Talent grant (National SMART Grant). Retrieved April 17, 2008, from
http://studentaid.ed.gov/PORTALSWebApp/students/english/SmartGrants.jsp

Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S. Mexican youth and the politics of caring.
Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Vara-Orta, F. (2007, January 31). Most Latino students spurn college loans. Los Angeles Times,
p. A1.

Venegas, K. M. (2006). Internet inequalities: Financial aid, the internet, and low-income students.
American Behavioral Scientist, 49(12), 1652–1669.

Venezia, A., Kirst, M., & Antonio, A. (2003). Betraying the college dream: How disconnected
K–12 and postsecondary education system undermine student aspirations. Final Policy
Report from Stanford University’s Bridge Project.

Virginia Community College System. (2008). Transfer list. Retrieved April 10, 2008, from
http://www.vccs.edu/Students/Transfer/tabid/106/Default.aspx

Wagener, U., & Nettles, M.T. (1998). It takes a community to education students. Change, 30(2),
18–25.

Wang, H. (2007, April). Combining Propensity Score Matching and Hierarchical Modeling to
Evaluate the Effects of Ability Grouping. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Ware, N.C., & Lee, V.E. (1988). Sex differences choice of college science majors. American
Educational Research Journal, 25(4), 593–614.

Watson, L.W., & Kuh, G.D. (1996). The influence of dominant race environments on student
involvement, perceptions, and educational gains: A look at historically Black and
predominantly White liberal arts institutions. Journal of College Student Development,
37, 415–424.

Weiler, W. C. (1991). The effect of undergraduate student loans on the decision to pursue
postbaccalaureate study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13(3), 212–220.

Weiler, W. C. (1994). Transition from consideration of a college to the decision to apply.
Research in Higher Education, 35(6), 631–646.

Wellman, J. V. (2002). State policy and community college-baccalaureate transfer. (National
Center Report #02–6). San Jose, CA: National Center for Public Policy and Higher
Education, and The Institute for Higher Education Policy.

272

Wenglinsky, H.H. (1996). The educational justification of historically Black colleges and
universities: A policy response to the U.S. Supreme Court. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 18(1), 91–103.

Wilder, G. Z., & Baydar, N. (1991). A study of decisions about graduate education: A two-year
longitudinal study of GRE takers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Williams, J. (2006). The pedagogy of debt. College Literature, 33(4), 155–169.

What Works Clearinghouse: Study design classification. (2006). U.S. Department of Education
Institute of Education Sciences.

What Works Clearinghouse: Study review standards. (2006). U.S. Department of Education
Institute of Education Sciences.

Whitt, E.J., Edison, M.I., Pascarella, E.T., Nora, A., & Terenzini, P.T. (1999). Women's
Perceptions of a "Chilly Climate" and Cognitive Outcomes in College: Additional
Evidence. Journal of College Student Development, 40(2), 163–177.

Wolf-Wendel, L.E. (1998). Models of excellence: The baccalaureate origins of successful
European American women, African American women, and Latinas. The Journal of
Higher Education, 69(2), 141–186.

Zarate, M.E., & Pachon, H.P. (2006). Perceptions of College Financial Aid Among California
Latino Youth. Policy Brief. Los Angeles: Tomás Rivera Policy Institute. Retrieved
January 28, 2007 from http://www.trpi.org/PDFs/Financial_Aid_Surveyfinal6302006.pdf

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study contributes to our understanding of the institutional and financial aid pathways traversed by Latina/o bachelor's degree holders in fields related to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), and the relationships between those pathways and selected outcomes of interest. Using the sociological framework of cumulative advantage/disadvantage and the statistical techniques of latent class analysis (LCA) and propensity score matching (PSM), data from the 2003 National Survey of Recent College Graduates (NSRCG) enhanced with institutional information drawn from the College Board Survey of Colleges and Universities, Barron's Selectivity Index, and the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) were analyzed to describe the means through which Latina/o STEM baccalaureates accessed those degrees, characterize their college financing strategies and to understand how indebtedness, measured relative to typical levels of borrowing within the B.S. degree-granting institutional context, influences these students' decisions to attend graduate school. The analytical sample reflects those Latinas/os who earned a bachelor's degree in a STEM field during the 2000-01 or 2001-02 academic years from a postsecondary institution in the mainland United States.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Learning from our global competitors: a comparative analysis of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education pipelines in the United States, Mainland China and Taiwan

Asset Metadata

Creator Malcom, Lindsey Ellen (author)

Core Title Accumulating (dis)advantage? Institutional and financial aid pathways of Latino STEM baccalaureates

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 07/30/2008

Defense Date 05/08/2008

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag financial aid,Latinos,OAI-PMH Harvest,postsecondary education,STEM

Language English

Advisor Dowd, Alicia C. (committee chair), Bensimon, Estela M. (committee member), Pachon, Harry (committee member)

Creator Email malcom@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1457

Unique identifier UC1100059

Identifier etd-Malcom-20080730 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-102568 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1457 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Malcom-20080730.pdf

Dmrecord 102568

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Malcom, Lindsey Ellen

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu