Princeton’s socioeconomic diversity has grown rapidly in the past decade. Last year, 21% of incoming freshmen received Pell grants, compared to just 7% in 2008. Efforts to bring more low-income students to campus have been extremely successful. Nevertheless, Princeton’s next task is to focus on the experience of these low-income students once on campus. How might Princeton’s environment negatively affect the experience of low-income or first-generation students, and what approach should Princeton take to mitigate any unique challenges placed upon these students?
I employed a mixed-methods approach to investigate those questions. Interviews with both low-income students and administrators were coupled with a large student survey to provide multiple perspectives. I found low-income status, rather than first-generation status, drove difference on campus. Low-income students face substantial challenges in Princeton’s social, professional, and academic realms.
In the social realm, Princeton’s dominant upper-class culture causes social exclusion and feelings of negative difference among low-income students. While 2 out of 10 students are low-income, 5 out of 10 come from families making more than $186,000 a year. This class dynamic shapes campus life in profound ways that encourage low-income students to hide and shift their true identities at Princeton. Ethnographic interviews and survey data support these claims. In fact, compared to others, low-income respondents were 3 times less likely to state they feel included on campus, and significantly more likely to “feel differently from others in ways they don’t like” and be “dissatisfied with their social lives.”
In the professional realm, low-income students face particular barriers. They must take on campus jobs that, while not likely harming GPAs, still serve as salient class markers on campus. Moreover, they must accrue funds over their summers to fulfill a summer savings requirement. This can considerably limit students’ ability to take advantage of unpaid or low-pay internships, as well as travel opportunities. A substantial proportion of low-income students cannot afford interview attire, and also feel left out of personal networking norms and abilities that make professional life easier for more traditional students.
Finally, low-income status is a significant independent predictor of academic underperformance at Princeton. Its negative association with GPA is roughly equal to that found for being an engineer or being Black. First, this could reflect a mismatch between Princeton’s non-inclusive academic norms and the tendency of low-income students to hail from a more diverse set of high-schools with different pedagogies and practices. Second, stereotype threat could be causing low-income students, who do feel stigmatized, to underperform. I believe my data support that both reasons are acting in tandem.
In tackling these issues, Princeton’s administration must resist the urge toward class-blindness. Acknowledging class matters on campus is the first step in dissolving negative stereotypes against low-income students and reforming non-inclusive practices. In acknowledging this, it is imperative to focus on reforming Princeton’s non-inclusive norms and practices, rather than on fitting low-income students into existing norms. Princeton must also foster the affirmation of low-income identity and community, while still helping students navigate Princeton’s status quo in the meantime. Following this strategy will further Princeton’s progress toward full inclusion and affirmation of low-income students.