"Breaking Us Down...to Build Us Up": Mixed Effects of Program Messaging on Borderline University Applicants

• In Event: Researcher-Practitioner Collaborations Committed to Improving the Experiences of Marginalized Students Along the Academic Pipeline

Abstract

Despite the mixed findings on whether high school grades or test scores are most predictive of college performance, both remain the most commonly used measures in college admission procedures. Yet, past work has highlighted persisting racial and income bias of standardized measures that disadvantage low-income, first-generation, and/or students of color. For students who fall just below the cutoff of admission to a four-year program, what we call borderline applicants, diversion to a two-year institution is a likely path. As such, drawing strict “admission cutoffs” based on narrow measures of success complicate institutional efforts to increase diversity on four-year campuses by increasing diversion to two-year programs. Using a researcher-practitioner approach, two studies investigated an “admissions experiment” designed to increase campus diversity by admitting 32 borderline applicants into a summer bridge program. Bridge programs, such as the example in the studies reported here, offer selected students the opportunity to adjust academically and socially to the campus before instruction begins. Studies that examine the effects of bridge programs have not utilized both quantitative and qualitative measures to explore their effects and very few focus on borderline applicants. This talk discusses the findings from a mixed-methods project done in collaboration with program directors of the summer bridge program and administrators in the university admissions office. Specifically, we examined the impact of the summer bridge program on the performance and adjustment of program Scholars identified through the regular admission process as not “prepared” for a university workload. Study 1 included analysis of institutional data (e.g., grades) to compare the performance of the Scholars (n=32) relative to two comparison samples of regularly admitted students (N = 912). Compared to a sample with matched admissions criteria (e.g., high school grades, SAT/ACT scores), the Scholars earned higher grades after the first semester and comparably after the first year in college. Study 2 utilized focus group interviews with the Scholars after the first semester in college to examine their experiences in the program and within the larger university. We explored what components of the bridge program facilitated or undermined performance and belonging on campus. We found that particular program components helped the Scholars in their transition to the university, including pre-matriculation exposure to campus resources and a highly-structured bridge program which lessened the shock of a college workload. The interviews also highlighted two major program shortcomings. First, the bridge program did not fully address the challenge of being a marginalized student on a predominantly White campus, leaving Scholars unprepared to deal with issues of race and racism on campus and within the program. Second, the “tough love” program messaging encouraging students to “work hard to prove that they belonged” was ineffective and even counterproductive. These findings yielded several program improvements that might enhance marginalized students’ transition into and experiences on four-year campuses. Moreover, the findings suggest that admissions practices that draw “red lines” might be reinforcing inequity and thwarting efforts to promote institutional diversity.

Author

• Rebecca Covarrubias, University of California - Santa Cruz