Russian Escort Service in Delhi 11k Hotel Foreigner Russian Call Girls in Delhi
jjj3
1. Latinos in Higher Education
Running Head: LATINOS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Latinos in higher education: the past, present and future.
Wendy Alemán
Oregon State University
1
2. Latinos in Higher Education
According to the latest census, Latinos (also referred to as Hispanics) are
now the largest minority group in the United States, representing thirteen percent
of the population (Schmidt, 2003). Latinos, as a whole, are a very diverse group
that includes individuals from any race with Spanish origins. According to the
Chronicle (2003), "Although the term [Hispanic] is mainly applied to people from
Latin American countries with linguistic and cultural ties to Spain, it also is used
by the U.S. government to refer to Spaniards themselves, as well people from
Portuguese-speaking Brazil." (pg A9). In the United States, Mexicans (58.5%),
Puerto Ricans (9.6%), and Cubans (3.5%) compose the largest segments of this
population (U.S. Census 2001). While more recent Latino immigrants of the U.S.
prefer to identify themselves by nationality-based labels (Schmidt, 2003), the
identity of Latino or Hispanic has been generally used in the United States to
unite this group for political or social reasons.
Given that Latinos are one of the largest growing minority groups, this
paper examines the challenges Latinos have faced in gaining access to higher
education and examines the make-up of this collective group to better
understand their trends in higher education. Moreover, one cannot truly
understand the current status of Latinos in higher education without first
examining the history of Latinos in the United States.
The Past
To accurately portray the challenges faced by Latinos pursuing an
education (K-12 and post-secondary) in the United States, an examination of the
2
3. Latinos in Higher Education
history of oppression and racism encountered by Mexican and Mexican
Americans is essential. In studying the history of Mexicans in the United States,
it is perhaps best to begin with the Treaty of Gaudalupe-Hildago of 1848.
Signed by the United States and Mexico at the conclusion of the U.S.-
Mexican War, the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo called for Mexico to give up
almost half of its territory which included California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas
and parts of Colorado, Nevada, and Utah. According to PBS (n.d.) website on
the history of the Treaty of Guadalupe,
At the time of the treaty, approximately 80,000 Mexicans lived in
the ceded territory, which comprised only about 4 percent of Mexico’s
population. Only a few people chose to remain Mexican citizens compared
to the many that became United States citizens. Most of the 80,000
residents continued to live in the Southwest, believing in the guarantee
that their property and civil rights would be protected. Sadly, this would not
always be the case. By the end of the 19th century, most Mexicans had
lost their land, either through force or fraud.
From the beginning, access to education and rights granted to other citizens
were denied to Mexicans. According to a recent journal article on the impact of
the Brown v. the Board of Education on the education of Latinos (Contreras &
Valverde, 2004):
3
4. Latinos in Higher Education
Prior to Brown, the educational conditions and treatment of Latino and
African Americans were much alike. Members of both groups were
disenfranchised. Most Latino children, like their African American
counterparts, were denied access to formal schooling. The few [Latinos]
who received instruction attend segregated schools, commonly referred to
in the Southwest as “Mexican Schools” that were clearly not equal to
schools for Whites.
Mexican schools were often staffed by student teachers from local colleges and
children were often reprimanded for conversing in Spanish (Ruiz, 2001).
According to Ruiz (2001), “Mexican schools, which emphasized vocational
education, served to funnel youth into the factories and building trades.” The
first state to formalize legislation to segregate Mexicans was the state of Arizona
in 1899. In 1899, the state passed a bill that stipulated English as the language
of instruction in public schools. This same bill was later used by school districts
to segregate Spanish-speaking children using “Language deficiency” as an
excuse to separate children based on their surnames, regardless of their
proficiency in English (Contreras & Valverde, 2004).
In the onset of the depression, segregation of Mexican’s children into
“Mexican only” schools boomed just as the Mexican population saw an explosion
of growth. Even in towns where Mexican children had quietly attended school
with white children, towns were suddenly building schools to keep the Mexican
students segregated. One of the first cases against Latino segregation was that
4
5. Latinos in Higher Education
of Alvarez v. Lemon Grove School District (Ruiz, 2001). Until the town of Lemon
Grove decided to build a separate school for Mexican children, Mexican and
white students had attended school together. Parents boycotted the decision of
having a separate school for their children and took the district to court with the
help of the Mexican consult (Ruiz, 2001). Under the auspice of providing a facility
for non-English speaking children the district attempted to defend its case,
whereas the Mexican-American students “took the stand to prove their
knowledge of English.” (Ruiz, 2001). The judge presiding the case ordered the
“immediate reinstatement” of Mexican children to their old school (Ruiz, 2001).
Only five years earlier, in the case of Independent School District v. Salvatierra,
the school district of Del Rio Independent in Texas was “…charged with
separating the Mexican American children merely because of their race. In
Salvatierra, the district successfully contended that the students’ language
deficiency warranted their separate schooling.” (Contreras et. al., pp. 471).
However, the first major victory against segregation came with the case of
Mendez v. Westminster School District. According to Contreras et. al. (2004):
The first federal court decision on the segregation of Mexican American
students was handed down in California in the Mendez v. Westminster
School District (1946). In that case, the trial court ruled that separate
schools with the same technical facilities did not satisfy the equal
protection provisions of the Constitution. The Ninth Circuit Court affirmed
the decision, finding that segregation of Mexican Americans denied them
5
6. Latinos in Higher Education
due process and equal protection. Despite this ruling, however, de facto
segregation continued throughout California.
Following the Mendez case was that of Delago v. Bastrop Independent School
District (1948) that ruled that the districts actions of segregation were in violation
of the 14th amendment. Contreas et. al. (2004) summarizes the oppression of
the time in the following paragraph:
…despite the rulings of Mendez, Delago, and Brown [vs. the Board of
Education](1954), school officials continued to segregating Latinos from
White students. This evasion was based on the technicality that Mexicans
and other Latinos were also classified as “White” for desegregation
purposes. As a result, in tri-ethnic settings, the post-Brown generation
saw the desegregation of predominately African American school settings
with Latino students while White students continued to be assigned to all-
White schools.
For many school districts, the classification of Mexicans as White provided them
with a loophole around Brown and allowed them to continue segregating Latino
and African American students. It would not be for another 16 years before this
loophole in the law was challenged. In the case of Cisneros v. Corpus Christi
Independent School District (1970) the “…court declared Mexican Americans to
be an identifiable ethnic minority group for the purposes of public school
segregation. Further, it was the first circuit court case to hold that the principles
enunciated in Brown apply to Latinos as well as African Americans.” (Contreras
6
7. Latinos in Higher Education
et. al. pp. 472). With the Cisneros decision, and the loophole closed, access to
an equal education was a possibility, the year 1970. While it took many more
legislative acts to initiate desegregation plans throughout the country, it was the
civil rights movement of the 1960s that made great strides in opening equal
access to education for Latinos.
The Present
Unfortunately, current trends of Latinos in higher education are grim. As a
title of a recent Pew Hispanic Research Center report (Fry, 2002) indicates
“Latinos in higher education: many enroll, too few graduate.” Overall, there is a
large gap among traditional aged (age 18-24) Latinos enrolling in college
compared to all other groups. According to The road to a college diploma: the
complex reality of raising education achievements for Hispanics in the United
States (2002), “in 2000, 10 percent of Hispanics ages 25 to 29 had completed a
bachelor’s degree or higher. In comparison, 34 percent of Whites and 18 percent
of Blacks in this young adult age group had completed a bachelor’s degree.”
According to Fry (2002), in the 18-to-24 year old age range “…only 35 percent of
Latino high school graduates in this age group are enrolled in college compared
to 46 percent of whites.” While many Latinos are enrolling, many more Latinos
are failing to persist through degree attainment compared to other groups. To
understand the condition and current trends of Latinos in higher education it is
important to look at the demographic that make up Latinos in the U.S.
7
8. Latinos in Higher Education
Trends of Latinos in higher education can be understood by examining the
following demographic characteristics: generational status, nationality of origin,
type of college enrollment, and institution type. First and foremost, when
discussing Latinos generational statuses it is important to understand the
terminology used to describe immigrant status in the U.S. First generation status
refers to newly arrived immigrants, while the term second generation is used to
describe the U.S. born children of these immigrants. Following this logic, third
generation Latinos are those individuals born to second generation Latinos (i.e.
third generation Latinos are born to “U.S. born Latinos”). Key findings of the
Pew Hispanic Research Report reveals several interesting trends in Latino
enrollment and degree attainment. Key findings of the report include the
following:
1) Native-born Latino high school graduate are enrolling in college at a
higher rate than their foreign-born counterparts, and that [this] is
especially true of the second generation, the U.S.-born children of
immigrants. About 42 percent of second-generation Latinos in the 18-
to-24 age range are enrolling in college, which is comparable to the
enrollment rate for white students (46 %). The college enrollment rate
is lower for first-generation Latino (26%) and for those with U.S.-born
parents (third generation and later) enroll at about 36 percent.
2) There is no substantial difference across generations in the percentage
of Latino high school graduates ages 18 to 24 who attend community
college.
8
9. Latinos in Higher Education
3) Enrollment in two-year colleges varies by national origin.
Approximately 36 percent of Mexican college students in the 18-to-24-
year-old old group attend two-year institutions compared to about 31
percent of Puerto Ricans and Cubans.
4) Cubans have by far the highest rate of college attendance of any
Latino national origin group with nearly 45 percent of 18-to 24 year old
high school graduates enrolled. For Mexicans, the comparable figure
is 33 percent and for Puerto Ricans, 30 percent.
What this means is that first generation and third generational students are
enrolling in lower numbers than those born in the U.S. to immigrant parents
(second generation Latinos). Overall, the trends reveal big differences in
national origin and its influence in enrollment. Student affairs professional should
understand the differences among nationalities and their trends in enrollment.
Hence, we cannot make generalizations about Latinos as a group, and instead
we need to look at the Latino subgroups. In addition to understanding
generational status and nationality differences in enrollment, it is important to
look at how and where Latinos are enrolling in college. Other key findings of the
Pew Hispanic Report reveal the following:
1) Latinos are far more likely to be enrolled in two-year colleges than
any other group.
9
10. Latinos in Higher Education
2) About 40 percent of Latinos 18-to-24-year old college students
attend two year institutions compared to about 25 percent of white
and black students in that age group.
3) Latinos are fare more likely to be part-time students.
Overall, a synthesis of Latino enrollment data reveals that Latinos (not including
Cubans) are more likely to drop out of college when enrolled part time (Fry,
2002). The reason for this trend seems to be that Latino students are enrolling in
community college near their home, staying at home with family while enrolling
part time, and are more likely to be working full time. Fry (2001) states the
reason for this as a “function of economic need” due to the following:
“Among low-skilled Latino immigrants, household incomes are often built
to acceptable levels by combining the earnings of several workers who
each might be taking home poverty-level wages. Thus, there is intense
pressure on young people, especially males, to contribute to the family
welfare as soon as they are old enough to work.” (pp. 5).
In recent research I conducted for student development theory with other
classmates, I found this to be the case in one out of five males we interviewed.
The big difference in familial pressure was generational status. The male student
who had little support from family was a first generation student at OSU who
immigrated to the U.S. with his dad to work. Hence, when this student indicated
that he wanted to pursue higher education full time, his family could not
completely understand or accept his decision. According to Fry (2001), “U.S.
10
11. Latinos in Higher Education
born Latinos 16 to 19 years old are four time more likely to be in school and not
working at all than their immigrant peers who came to the United States as
adolescents.” When studying enrollment trends by nationality, almost half of all
Mexicans enrolled in college are attending two-year colleges (Fry, 2002).
Another reason for this high enrollment rate of Latinos at community college is
the lower cost of tuition. While Latinos overall are enrolling in higher numbers,
Latinos are more likely to drop out of college when enrolled at a community
college (National Center on Educational Statistics, 2000).
A discussion of current trends of Latinos in higher education cannot go
without exploring the role of Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs), which currently
enrolls 50% of all Latinos enrolled in higher education (Dayton, Gonzalez-
Vasquez, Martinez, and Plum, 2004). Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs) can be
defined in one of two ways. The federal government defines this institution type
as those college or universities with at least 25% Latino full-time equivalent
enrollment and also having 50% or more low-income students. Whereas, the
Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU), the organization that
helped HSIs establish its federal recognition, acknowledges institutions with at
least 25% head count of Latino enrollment as “Hispanic Serving.” As opposed to
Historically Black Colleges that were established to serve African-Americans,
HSIs were established to serve the majority, but through shifts in population
demographics (i.e. by default of location), now serve a growing number of
Latinos (Benitez & DeAro, 2004). According to Benitez, et. al.
11
12. Latinos in Higher Education
There are approximately 242 HSIs located in fourteen states and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; 128 of these are community colleges.
Although HSIs make up only 7 percent of all nonprofit colleges and
universities in the United States, they account for 54 percent of the total
Latino student enrollment in higher education.
In addition to enrolling over half of all Latinos, a majority of HSIs are 2-year
colleges. According to the U.S. Department of Education (2002), excluding the
forty-four four-year institutions in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, community
colleges make up 65 percent of HSIs in the continental United States.
Considering the numbers of Latinos enrolled in community colleges nation wide
(60 percent Latinos compared to only 36 percent of white students), it is not
surprising that 65 percent of HSIs are community colleges. Knowing that most
Latinos are enrolling in community colleges and that over half of all Latinos are
enrolling in HSIs, what can we do to improve the success of these students in
higher education?
The Future
Since the last census in 1990 to the 2000 census, the Latino population
has increased by 57.9 percent. In view of this explosive growth, how will the
growth of Latinos look in the future? The U.S. Census (Bergman, 2004) predicts
the following:
12
13. Latinos in Higher Education
Nearly 67 million people of Hispanic origin (who may be of any race)
would be added to the nation’s population between 2000 and 2050. Their
numbers are projected to grow from 35.6 million to 102.6 million, an
increase of 188 percent. Their share of the nation’s population would
nearly double, from 12.6 percent to 24.4 percent.
Taken as a whole, it is predicted that this population growth will be reflected in
Latino college enrollment. Since most Latinos enroll in community colleges due
to their proximity to family and their lower price tags (compared to four-year
colleges), it is likely that the future will see a greater number of 2-year Hispanic
Serving Institutions. Since it takes 25 percent head count to obtain this title from
HACU, we will likely see a growth in HSIs in areas with large Latino populations.
According to the U.S. Census (2001), the largest areas with Latino populations of
one million or more include California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Arizona,
and New Jersey; these states account for 76.8 of the entire U.S. Latino
population. Moreover, it is likely that many more Historically Black Colleges will
gain the additional title of a Hispanic Serving Institution considering their
proximity to large Latino populations.
While it easy to predict an increase in Latino enrollment, it is difficult to
predict whether the gap in enrollment and degree attainment will change. This
gap between enrollment and degree attainment can only change with the
commitment of administrators at two-year and four-year colleges.
Conclusions
13
14. Latinos in Higher Education
Considering the Latino population is now the largest minority group in the
United States and its population is expected to continue its tremendous growth
trend, we cannot ignore issues influencing Latino enrollment and their ultimate
success in college. In my opinion, the high number of Latinos enrolling in
community colleges coupled by those Latinos enrolling part-time indicates that
there is a greater need for financial aid. Community college tuition is attractive to
many low-income Latinos (especially Mexicans) because of its low cost in
comparison to a four-year college. Because Latinos that work part-time have a
greater drop-out risk, student affairs official need to make greater efforts to
encourage Latinos to enroll full time as well as provide them the financial
assistance to do so. Overall, initiatives to keep students enrolled at the
community colleges are needed. This includes policies that make transferring to
a four-year college easy.
To increase overall bachelor’s degree attainment, Latinos are more likely
to persist at a four-year college. Knowing this, outreach programs that
encourage Latinos to attend college should make greater efforts to promote four-
year schools as the path for successful bachelor’s degree attainment. Moreover,
because Latinos from low-socioeconomic status are likely to shy away from the
larger price tag of a university, more financial aid is need to encourage Latinos to
choose four-year schools over two-year community colleges. Until changes are
made in financial aid, enrollment of Latinos at four-year colleges will continue to
remain low. At Oregon State University (OSU) for example, Diversity
Scholarships offered by the Admissions office have statistically been awarded to
14
15. Latinos in Higher Education
many more white students than minorities. OSU needs to make more of an
effort to identify the students who these scholarships were originally intended for.
How can OSU do this without getting into conflict with equal protection? OSU
needs to lower the GPA of the diversity scholarship so that more minority
students qualify. Here are the current minimum requirements according to the
OSU financial aid website:
3.65 GPA AND 1200 SAT/26 ACT for high school [OR], 3.65 GPA and 36
or more college credits for transfers [OR], 3.25 GPA. In addition
Applicants must meet AT LEAST ONE of the following criteria: Member of
an ethnic minority community OR Low income status (federal guidelines)
OR Documented Disability.
A recent panel discussion hosted by OSU Student Affairs on Latinos in Higher
Education echoed the need for access to financial aid. At least one student from
a migrant worker background who served on the panel indicated that she was
originally accepted into OSU without a scholarship. As a result, she dropped her
plans to attend OSU and decided to attend the local community college.
However, much to her luck, the College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP)
was reinstated this fall (3 days before school started she was informed she was
accepted into the CAMP program) and she was able to enroll at OSU. While
some students are finding resources/assistance to pay for college, many others
are not. Many more, like the student on the panel, are opting for the cheaper
tuition of community colleges.
15
16. Latinos in Higher Education
An important issue for Latinos overall is access to information. Many
Latinos currently enrolling in college are first-generation college students. These
students do not have family members that know the ropes of applying for
financial aid or searching for scholarships. Without any assistance from school
officials (either at the high school or college level), students are losing
opportunities to compete for scholarships.
Overall, four-year colleges need to recognize the role they can play in the
overall success of Latino degree attainment. While recognizing this role, four-
year colleges need to make an explicit effort to attract Latino students to these
schools and offer the resources for them to attend. Outreach initiatives by four-
year colleges may be the only way to change the trend of Latinos choosing to
enroll part-time at community colleges. As a society, we should strive for an
educated workforce. Knowing that Latinos have a better chance at success
when enrolled full-time at a four-year institution, we need to do better job at
increasing Latino enrollment at these schools. At OSU for example, current
enrollment of Latinos hovers around 3 percent. While overall enrollment of
Latinos at Oregon community colleges is at about 6.76 percent (OCCWD, 2003).
The following recommendations for action are made by Brown, Santiago, and
Lopez (2003):
1) Foster a K-16 strategy to education. 2) Increase awareness through the
educational pipeline about the challenges facing Latinos, 3) Close the
information gap by widely disseminating accurate information about
16
17. Latinos in Higher Education
paying for college, and more effectively targeting outreach to Latino
communities.
To change the gap between enrollment and degree attainment, four-year
colleges need to make a commitment to these recommendations. Overall, four-
year colleges must be actively involved in recruiting Latinos and closing the gap
of degree attainment.
References
Bergman, M. (2004). Census Bureau Projects Tripling of Hispanic and Asian
Populations in 50 Years: Non-Hispanic Whites may drop to half of total
population. (Online). Retrieved: December 8, 2004. U.S. Census Bureau
News, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington D.C. Website:
http://www.census.gov/Press-
Release/www/releases/archives/population/001720.html
Brown, S.E., Santiago, D., & Lopez, E. (2003). Latinos in higher education:
today and tomorrow. Change, 35 (2), 40-45.
Contreras, A.R. & Valverde (1994). The impact of Brown on the Education of
Latinos. Journal of Negro Education, 63, (3), 470-481.
Fry, R. (2002). Latinos in higher education: many enroll, too few graduate. Pew
Hispanic Center: Washington, DC.
Laden, B. V. (2001). Hispanic-Serving Institutions: myths and realities. Peabody
Journal of Education, 76 (1), 73-92.
U.S. Census Bureau (2001). The Hispanic Population, Census 2000 brief. U.S.
Census Bureau, Washington, D.C.
National Center for Education Statistics (2000). Descriptive Summary of 1995-
96. Beginning Postsecondary Students: 3 Years Later. NCES 2000-154.
97. Washington, DC: NCES.
Oregon Community Colleges and Workforce Development (OCCWD) (2003).
Oregon Community College 2002-2003 profile. State of Oregon publication.
PBS (n.d.), Treaty of Guadalupe (online). Retrieved November 23, 2004.
http://www.pbs.org/kpbs/theborder/history/timeline/6.html
President’s Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic
Americans. (2002). The road to a college diploma: the complex reality of
raising educational achievement for Hispanics in the United States.
Washington, D.C.
Ruiz, V. L. (2001). South by Southwest: Mexican Americans and segregated
schooling, 1900-1950. OAH Magazine, Winter, 23-27.
Schmidt (2003a). Acadme’s Hispanic Future: the nation’s largest minority group
17
18. Latinos in Higher Education
faces big obstacles in higher education and colleges struggle to find the right
ways to help. Chronicle of Education, 50 (14), A8.
Schmidt (2003b). The label “Hispanic” Irks some, but also unites. Chronicle of
Education, 50 (14), A9.
Stefkovich, J.A. & Terrence, L. (1994). A legal history of desegregation in higher
education. Journal of Negro Education, 63 (3), 406-419.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics,
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). (2002).
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Enrollment Survey,
Completion Survey, Financial Survey, and Institutional Survey.
18