The share of first-generation students (those who are the first in their family to attend college) in Ivy League schools varied from school to school. For the Class of 2028 (students beginning university in the Fall of 2024), **** percent of Cornell University's freshman class were first-generation college students.
This statistic shows the percentage of students identifying as first-generation in the United States in 2016, by gender and ethnicity. As of 2016, about ** percent of the first-generation American students, broken down by gender, were female. Almost ** percent of the first-generation students identified themselves as Native Americans in the United States in 2016.
In 2020, ** percent of students at Brown University in the United States were first-generation college students. This is an increase from the previous year, when ** percent of students at Brown were first-generation college students.
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 (CC BY-NC 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
This qualitative longitudinal study aims to explore the well-being and academic readiness of first-generation undergraduates over time. The study involves two rounds of 1-hour Zoom interviews, conducted at two different time points (e.g., first and second semester of an academic year). The sampling procedure will ensure a diverse and representative sample of first-generation students while maintaining feasibility and ethical considerations.Target population is defined with an inclusion criteria: First-generation undergraduate students (defined as students whose parents/guardians did not complete a bachelor’s degree); and enrolled full-time in a degree program at the participating institution(s). Exclusion criteria includes students who do not identify as first-generation.Sampling strategy is by purposive sampling and snowball sampling. Purposive sampling ensures a diverse sample that reflects the heterogeneity of first-generation students in terms of, gender, ethnicity/race, socioeconomic background, academic major, year of study (e.g., freshmen, sophomores), and student status as local, mainland, or international. Snowball sampling invites participants to refer other first-generation students who meet the inclusion criteria. This will help expand the sample and include students who may not be easily reachable through institutional channels.Since the population of first-generation students is minor in a university, sample size was aimed at 30 participants for the interviews and fifty students were recruited to join round 1 interviews. This sample size is manageable for in-depth qualitative analysis and allows for attrition in the second round. Round 1 interviews were conducted at the beginning of the academic year (e.g., September–October). Round 2 interviews were conducted at the end of the academic year (e.g., April–May). A 10% attrition rate was anticipated between the two rounds due to scheduling conflicts or withdrawal from the study. Forty-five students from round 1 continued the interview in round 2. The data files are transcripts form both round 1 and round 2 interviews.
According to a survey conducted in 2024, ** percent of Generation Z students reported that they would be the first in their family to attend college in the United States.
This reflective paper explores the intersectionality of social identity, trauma, and education through the lens of a first-generation college student (FGCS) who is a neurodivergent Army veteran. I share my personal journey and experiences, highlighting marginalized communities’ challenges in the education system. I delve into the impact of cultural invasion, the transmission of trauma across generations, and the importance of critical consciousness in addressing educational inequality. I also discuss the role of spatial thinking and language in shaping learning experiences. I emphasize the need for cultural awareness, inclusivity, and equity in educational spaces and highlight the transformative power of embracing one’s differences. Overall, I explain the complex dynamics of social identity, trauma, and education and call for a deeper understanding and critical examination of these issues.
In Harvard University's Class of 2025, **** percent of Hispanic or Latinx students were first-generation college students. A further **** percent of South Asian students at Harvard in the Class of 2025 were first-generation students.
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
IntroductionWe investigated differences in domain-general expectancy, value, and engagement in school by generation status and how the relationship among these constructs and academic performance differ by generation status.MethodsA total of 573 college students enrolled in introductory psychology courses participated in the study. We collected data on generation status, expectancy-value beliefs, school engagement, and official GPA data from participants, tested measurement invariance of expectancy-value beliefs and engagement between first-generation college students (FGCS) and continuing generation college students (CGCS), and conducted multigroup modeling to understand the differential relations of expectancy-value, engagement, and GPA between the two groups.ResultsWe discovered that the latent mean of expectancy beliefs differed significantly by generation status, with FGCS reporting higher expectancy than CGCS. There were no differences in the latent mean of task value. Multigroup structural equation modeling revealed that the effect of expectancy-value motivation on behavioral engagement was similar across groups, but its effect on cognitive engagement was greater for the FGCS than for the CGCS. For both groups, expectancy impacted academic performance via behavioral engagement. Finally, neither expectancy-value motivation nor cognitive engagement directly predicted academic performance for either group.DiscussionThe findings have important theoretical implications for understanding motivation and achievement of FGCS and CGCS and critical practical implications regarding undergraduate education.
This statistic shows the acceptance and attendance rates of freshmen at first-choice colleges in the United States in 2016, by student generation. In 2016, about ** percent of the first-generation students were accepted to their first-choice college; however, the attendance rate of first-choice college by first-generation students was **** percent in the United States.
https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/3132/termshttps://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/3132/terms
The Higher Education General Information Survey (HEGIS) series was designed to provide comprehensive information on various aspects of postsecondary education in the United States and its territories (American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the Marshall Islands) and Department of Defense schools outside the United States. Data are available for both public and private two-year and four-year institutions. This data collection contains information about the residence and migration of college students elicited as part of the VII package. The package was distributed to approximately 30,408 colleges and universities and their branches located in the United States and its outlying territories. The data provide information on full-time and part-time students based on their in-state, out-of-state, and foreign status. Only students enrolled at an institution for the first time at each of the following class levels were reported: (1) undergraduate, (2) graduate, (3) first-professional, and (4) unclassified. Variables provide information on enrollment, institution name, state of residence, and part-time and full-time status. Information regarding institution name, enrollment number, accreditation type, sex, and race of students is included in this study as well.
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to explore the influence of family capital (including family economic capital, family cultural capital and family social capital) on the academic achievement (including ability development, academic performance and self-concept) of first-generation college students.MethodsThe questionnaires are based on the CFPS (China Family Panel Studies) database and tailored to the specific circumstances. Data was collected from 1524 first-generation college students from five universities in Liaoning Province. SPSS 23.0 and AMOS 24.0 were used to analyze the data.ResultsFamily economic capital significantly predicted ability development (standardized regression coefficient = 0.198, P < 0.001) and academic performance (standardized regression coefficient = 0.220, P < 0.001); Family cultural capital significantly predicted ability development (standardized regression coefficient = .114, P < 0.001), academic performance (standardized regression coefficient = 0.217, P < 0.001) and self-concept (standardized regression coefficient = 0.160, P < 0.001); Family social capital significantly predicted academic performance (standardized regression coefficient=0.084, P < 0.01) and self-concept (standardized regression coefficient = 0.156, P < 0.001).ConclusionFamily capital can significantly affect the academic achievement of first-generation college students. To bridge the gap of academic achievement caused by family capital for first-generation college students and promote class mobility, special attention should be paid to the internal actions of students in higher education fields, the connection between different fields should be strengthened, and humanistic care for disadvantaged groups should be implemented.
Financial overview and grant giving statistics of First Generation College Bound Inc.
This dataset contains the total first-year retention rates and counts (Fall to Fall) for new first-time, full-time, degree-seeking undergraduate students, disaggregated by gender. It covers all public community colleges and state universities in Massachusetts, and the University of Massachusetts since 2013.
This dataset is 1 of 3 datasets that is also published in the interactive Retention of First-Time, Full-Time Students dashboard on the Department of Higher Education Data Center:
Public Postsecondary First Year Retention: Summary Public Postsecondary First Year Retention by Race Public Postsecondary First Year Retention by Gender
Definitions: - Retention is characterized when a new first-time, full-time student who was enrolled in their first Fall semester is again enrolled in their second Fall semester. - Adjusted Cohort Count: the number of first-year students in a cohort, excluding those who graduated within the first year. - Retained Any Institution is determined by finding students enrolled in the next Fall at other MA Public Institutions using Massachusetts Department of Higher Education data or elsewhere using NSC data. - Cohort identification: These are the Fall Term Credit Students, identified with a cohort when their current registration = New; their New Student Type = Degree-seeking; and enrollment is full-time with >= 12 credits.
Notes: - To comply with data privacy laws, Bucketing is used as a form of data suppression. If a gender category has <= 6 students, then its data is combined with the next largest gender category and the gender is labeled as "Other." - Data appear as reported to the Massachusetts Department of Higher Education.
This dataset contains the total first-year retention rates and counts (Fall to Fall) for new first-time, full-time, degree-seeking undergraduate students. It covers all public community colleges and state universities in Massachusetts, and the University of Massachusetts since 2013.
This dataset is 1 of 3 datasets that is also published in the interactive Retention of First-Time, Full-Time Students dashboard on the Department of Higher Education Data Center:
Public Postsecondary First Year Retention: Summary Public Postsecondary First Year Retention by Race Public Postsecondary First Year Retention by Gender
Definitions: - Retention is characterized when a new first-time, full-time student who was enrolled in their first Fall semester is again enrolled in their second Fall semester. - Adjusted Cohort Count: the number of first-year students in a cohort, excluding those who graduated within the first year. - Retained Any Institution is determined by finding students enrolled in the next Fall at other MA Public Institutions using Massachusetts Department of Higher Education data or elsewhere using NSC data. - Cohort identification: These are the Fall Term Credit Students, identified with a cohort when their current registration = New; their New Student Type = Degree-seeking; and enrollment is full-time with >= 12 credits.
Notes: - Data appear as reported to the Massachusetts Department of Higher Education.
This dataset consists of a selection of variables extracted from the U.S. Department of Education's College Scorecard 2015/2016. For the original, raw data visit the College Scorecard webpage. This dataset includes variables about institution types, proportion of degree types awarded, student enrollments and demographics, and a number of price and revenue variables. For 2005-2006 data, see here.Note: Data is not uniformly available for all schools on all variables. Variables for which there is no data (NULL), or where data is suppressed for reasons of privacy, are indicated by 999999999.
ATTRIBUTE DESCRIPTION EXAMPLE
ID2 1
UNITIDUnit ID for institution 100654
OPEID 8-digit OPE ID for institution 100200
OPEID6 6-digit OPE ID for institution 1002
State FIPS
1
State
AL
Zip
35762
City
Normal
Institution Name
Alabama A & M University
Institution Type 1 Public 2 Private nonprofit 3 Private for-profit 1
Institution Level 1 4-year 2 2-year 3 Less-than-2-year 1
In Operation 1 true 0 false 1
Main Campus 1 true 0 false 1
Branches Count of the number of branches 1
Popular Degree 1 Predominantly certificate-degree granting 2 Predominantly associate's-degree granting 3 Predominantly bachelor's-degree granting 4 Entirely graduate-degree granting 3
Highest Degree 0 Non-degree-granting 1 Certificate degree 2 Associate degree 3 Bachelor's degree 4 Graduate degree 4
PCIP01 Percentage of degrees awarded in Agriculture, Agriculture Operations, And Related Sciences. 0.0446
PCIP03 Percentage of degrees awarded in Natural Resources And Conservation. 0.0023
PCIP04 Percentage of degrees awarded in Architecture And Related Services. 0.0094
PCIP05 Percentage of degrees awarded in Area, Ethnic, Cultural, Gender, And Group Studies. 0
PCIP09 Percentage of degrees awarded in Communication, Journalism, And Related Programs. 0
PCIP10 Percentage of degrees awarded in Communications Technologies/Technicians And Support Services. 0.0164
PCIP11 Percentage of degrees awarded in Computer And Information Sciences And Support Services. 0.0634
PCIP12 Percentage of degrees awarded in Personal And Culinary Services. 0
PCIP13 Percentage of degrees awarded in Education. 0.1268
PCIP14 Percentage of degrees awarded in Engineering. 0.1432
PCIP15 Percentage of degrees awarded in Engineering Technologies And Engineering-Related Fields. 0.0587
PCIP16 Percentage of degrees awarded in Foreign Languages, Literatures, And Linguistics. 0
PCIP19 Percentage of degrees awarded in Family And Consumer Sciences/Human Sciences. 0.0188
PCIP22 Percentage of degrees awarded in Legal Professions And Studies. 0
PCIP23 Percentage of degrees awarded in English Language And Literature/Letters. 0.0235
PCIP24 Percentage of degrees awarded in Liberal Arts And Sciences, General Studies And Humanities. 0.0423
PCIP25 Percentage of degrees awarded in Library Science. 0
PCIP26 Percentage of degrees awarded in Biological And Biomedical Sciences. 0.1009
PCIP27 Percentage of degrees awarded in Mathematics And Statistics. 0.0094
PCIP29 Percentage of degrees awarded in Military Technologies And Applied Sciences. 0
PCIP30 Percentage of degrees awarded in Multi/Interdisciplinary Studies. 0
PCIP31 Percentage of degrees awarded in Parks, Recreation, Leisure, And Fitness Studies. 0
PCIP38 Percentage of degrees awarded in Philosophy And Religious Studies. 0
PCIP39 Percentage of degrees awarded in Theology And Religious Vocations. 0
PCIP40 Percentage of degrees awarded in Physical Sciences. 0.0188
PCIP41 Percentage of degrees awarded in Science Technologies/Technicians. 0
PCIP42 Percentage of degrees awarded in Psychology. 0.0282
PCIP43 Percentage of degrees awarded in Homeland Security, Law Enforcement, Firefighting And Related Protective Services. 0.0282
PCIP44 Percentage of degrees awarded in Public Administration And Social Service Professions. 0.0516
PCIP45 Percentage of degrees awarded in Social Sciences. 0.0399
PCIP46 Percentage of degrees awarded in Construction Trades. 0
PCIP47 Percentage of degrees awarded in Mechanic And Repair Technologies/Technicians. 0
PCIP48 Percentage of degrees awarded in Precision Production. 0
PCIP49 Percentage of degrees awarded in Transportation And Materials Moving. 0
PCIP50 Percentage of degrees awarded in Visual And Performing Arts. 0.0258
PCIP51 Percentage of degrees awarded in Health Professions And Related Programs. 0
PCIP52 Percentage of degrees awarded in Business, Management, Marketing, And Related Support Services. 0.1479
PCIP54 Percentage of degrees awarded in History. 0
Admission Rate
0.6538
Average RetentionRate of retention averaged between full-time and part-time students. 0.4428
Retention, Full-Time Students
0.5779
Retention, Part-Time Students
0.3077
Completion Rate
0.1104
Enrollment Number of enrolled students 4505
Male Students Percentage of the student body that is male. 0.4617
Female Students Percentage of the student body that is female. 0.5383
White Percentage of the student body that identifies as white. 0.034
Black Percentage of the student body that identifies as African American. 0.9216
Hispanic Percentage of the student body that identifies as Hispanic or Latino. 0.0058
Asian Percentage of the student body that identifies as Asian. 0.0018
American Indian and Alaskan Native Percentage of the student body that identifies as American Indian or Alaskan Native. 0.0022
Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander Percentage of the student body that identifies as Native Hawaiian or Pacific islander. 0.0018
Two or More Races Percentage of the student body that identifies as two or more races. 0
Non-Resident Aliens Percentage of the student body that are non-resident aliens. 0.0062
Race Unknown Percentage of the student body for whom racial identity is unknown. 0.0266
Percent Parents no HS Diploma Percentage of parents of students whose highest level of education is less than high school. 0.019298937
Percent Parents HS Diploma Percentage of parents of students whose highest level of education is high school 0.369436786
Percent Parents Post-Secondary Ed. Percentage of parents of students whose highest level of education is college or above. 0.611264277
Title IV Students Percentage of student body identified as Title IV 743
HCM2 Cash Monitoring Schools identified by the Department of Ed for Higher Cash Monitoring Level 2 0
Net Price
13435
Cost of Attendance
20809
In-State Tuition and Fees
9366
Out-of-State Tuition and Fees
17136
Tuition and Fees (Program) Tuition and fees for program-year schools NULL
Tution Revenue per Full-Time Student
9657
Expenditures per Full-Time Student
7941
Average Faculty Salary
7017
Percent of Students with Federal Loan
0.8159
Share of Students with Federal Loan
0.896382157
Share of Students with Pell Grant
0.860906217
Median Loan Principal Amount upon Entering Repayment
14600
Median Debt for Completed Students Median debt for student who completed a course of study 35000
Median Debt for Incompleted Students Median debt for student who did not complete a course of study 9500
Median Debt for Family Income $0K-$30K Median debt for students of families with less thank $30,000 income 14457
Median Debt for Family Income $30K-$75K Median debt for students of families with $30,000-$75,000 income 15000
Median Debt for Family Income over $75K Median debt for students of families with over $75,000 income 14250
Median Debt Female Students
16000
Median Debt Male Students
13750
Median Debt 1st Gen. Students Median debt for first generation college student 14307.5
Median Debt Not 1st Gen. Students Median debt for not first generation college students 14953
Cumulative Loan Debt Greater than 90% of Students (90th Percentile)
48750
Cumulative Loan Debt Greater than 75% of Students (75th Percentile)
32704
Cumulative Loan Debt Greater than 25% of Students (25th Percentile)
5500
Cumulative Loan Debt Greater than 10% of Students (10th Percentile)
3935.5
Accrediting Agency
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges
Website
Price Calculator
www2.aamu.edu/scripts/netpricecalc/npcalc.htm
Latitude
34.783368
Longitude
-86.568502
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Data for this study were collected at the University of California – Irvine (UCI) as part of the UCI-MUST (Measuring Undergraduate Success Trajectories) Project, a larger longitudinal measurement project aimed at improving understanding of undergraduate experience, trajectories and outcomes, while supporting campus efforts to improve institutional performance and enhance educational equity (Arum et. al. 2021). The project is focused on student educational experience at a selective large, research-oriented public university on the quarter system with half of its students first-generation and 85 percent Hispanic, Asian, African-American, Pacific Islander or Native American. Since Fall 2019, the project has tracked annually new cohorts of freshmen and juniors with longitudinal surveys administered at the end of every academic quarter. Data from the Winter 2023 end of term assessment, administered in the first week of April, was pooled for four longitudinal study cohorts for this study (i.e., Fall 2019-2022 cohorts). There was an overall response rate of 42.5 percent for the Winter 2023 end of term assessment. This allowed us to consider student responses from freshmen through senior years enrolled in courses throughout the university. Students completed questionnaire items about their knowledge and use of ChatGPT in and out of the classroom during the winter 2023 academic term. In total 1,129 students completed the questionnaire, which asked questions about: knowledge of ChatGPT (“Do you know what ChatGPT is?”); general use (“Have you used ChatGPT before?”); and instructor attitude (“What was the attitude of the instructor for [a specific course students enrolled in] regarding the use of ChatGPT?”). Of those 1,129 students, 191 had missing data for at least one variable of interest and were subsequently dropped from analysis, resulting in a final sample of 938 students. In addition, for this study we merged our survey data with administrative data from campus that encompasses details on student background, including gender, race, first-generation college-going, and international student status. Campus administrative data also provides course-level characteristics, including whether a particular class is a lower- or upper-division course as well as the academic unit on campus offering the course. In addition, we used administrative data on all students enrolled at the university to generate classroom composition measures for every individual course taken by students in our sample – specifically the proportion of underrepresented minority students in the class, the proportion of international students in the class and the proportion of female students in the class. For our student-level analysis [R1], we used binary logistic regressions to examine the association between individual characteristics and (1) individual awareness and (2) individual academic use of ChatGPT utilizing the student-level data of 938 students. Individual characteristics include gender, underrepresented minority student status, international student status, first generation college-going student status, student standing (i.e. lower or upper classmen), cumulative grade point average and field of study. Field of study was based on student major assigned to the broad categories of physical sciences (i.e. physical sciences, engineering, and information and computer science), health sciences (i.e. pharmacy, biological sciences, public health, and nursing), humanities, social sciences (i.e. business, education, and social sciences), the arts, or undeclared. We defined awareness of ChatGPT as an affirmative response to the question “Do you know what ChatGPT is?” Regarding ChatGPT use, we focused on academic use which was defined as an affirmative response of either “Yes, for academic use” or “Yes, for academic and personal use” to the question “Have you used ChatGPT before?” For our course-level analysis [R2], we constructed a measure – course-level instructor encouragement for ChatGPT use – based on student responses to the end of the term survey conducted at the completion of the Winter 2023 term. In the survey, students were asked to indicate the extent to which their instructors encouraged them to use ChatGPT in each of their enrolled courses. The response
There were approximately 18.58 million college students in the U.S. in 2022, with around 13.49 million enrolled in public colleges and a further 5.09 million students enrolled in private colleges. The figures are projected to remain relatively constant over the next few years.
What is the most expensive college in the U.S.? The overall number of higher education institutions in the U.S. totals around 4,000, and California is the state with the most. One important factor that students – and their parents – must consider before choosing a college is cost. With annual expenses totaling almost 78,000 U.S. dollars, Harvey Mudd College in California was the most expensive college for the 2021-2022 academic year. There are three major costs of college: tuition, room, and board. The difference in on-campus and off-campus accommodation costs is often negligible, but they can change greatly depending on the college town.
The differences between public and private colleges Public colleges, also called state colleges, are mostly funded by state governments. Private colleges, on the other hand, are not funded by the government but by private donors and endowments. Typically, private institutions are much more expensive. Public colleges tend to offer different tuition fees for students based on whether they live in-state or out-of-state, while private colleges have the same tuition cost for every student.
In the context of continued equity gaps in student success within and beyond STEM, this paper explored the extent to which the representation of underrepresented racial minority (URM) and first-generation college students predict grades in postsecondary STEM courses. The analyses examined 87,027 grades received by 11,868 STEM-interested students within 8,468 STEM courses at 20 institutions. Cross-classified multilevel models and student fixed effect analyses of these data both support the same conclusion: the proportion of URM and first-generation students within a class is positively associated with STEM grades among all students, and these relationships are stronger among students who are members of the minoritized group. Thus, promoting the representation of students with minoritized identities in STEM courses may lead to greater equity in college outcomes.
https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.htmlhttps://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
Data on student success and retention-in-major (DVs) for a sample of science and mathematics majors before and after a required peer-cooperative learning program was implemented. IVs include student major, course taken, SAT scores, and demographic data including gender, low-income student status, student-of-color status, and first-generation college student status.
This dataset contains the total first-year retention rates and counts (Fall to Fall) for new first-time, full-time, degree-seeking undergraduate students, disaggregated by race. It covers all public community colleges and state universities in Massachusetts, and the University of Massachusetts since 2013.
This dataset is 1 of 3 datasets that is also published in the interactive Retention of First-Time, Full-Time Students dashboard on the Department of Higher Education Data Center:
Public Postsecondary First Year Retention: Summary Public Postsecondary First Year Retention by Race Public Postsecondary First Year Retention by Gender
Definitions: - Retention is characterized when a new first-time, full-time student who was enrolled in their first Fall semester is again enrolled in their second Fall semester. - Adjusted Cohort Count: the number of first-year students in a cohort, excluding those who graduated within the first year. - Retained Any Institution is determined by finding students enrolled in the next Fall at other MA Public Institutions using Massachusetts Department of Higher Education data or elsewhere using NSC data. - Cohort identification: These are the Fall Term Credit Students, identified with a cohort when their current registration = New; their New Student Type = Degree-seeking; and enrollment is full-time with >= 12 credits.
Notes: - To comply with data privacy laws, student groups with cohort sizes <= 6 are suppressed. - Data appear as reported to the Massachusetts Department of Higher Education.
The share of first-generation students (those who are the first in their family to attend college) in Ivy League schools varied from school to school. For the Class of 2028 (students beginning university in the Fall of 2024), **** percent of Cornell University's freshman class were first-generation college students.