“A Win for All of Us”: A Counterstory on What Counts as Success in Latinx Students’ College Decision-Making

Abstract

This paper utilizes a composite counterstory to address how Latinx first-generation-to-college, low-income students describe what ‘success’ looks like within their college decision-making processes and counter traditional perspectives on what should matter as they contemplate whether and where to pursue higher education. Building upon calls within college decision-making literature that better encompass the social ecologies of marginalized students, this study centers the voices of 14 Latinx students who apply to college and, oftentimes, challenge educators and mainstream narratives about how they should select which institution to attend. What I found is that students’ decision-making processes cannot be explained through mainstream narratives such as meritocracy, undermatching theory, or the importance of school prestige; rather, these discourses, when perpetuated by educators and peers, can be incredibly discouraging and cause dissonance among students. Instead, students portray the importance of family and collective well-being when considering where to pursue college, showing the non-academic prioritizations that shape students’ perspectives on ‘success’. Overall, this study provides an essential counterstory against deficit perspectives surrounding Latinx first-generation, low-income students’ college decision-making and encourages further exploration of how government funding and initiatives can support students regardless of what institution they attend.

Full text

Citation: Luqueño, L.P. “A Win for
All of Us”: A Counterstory on What
Counts as Success in Latinx Students’
College Decision-Making. Educ. Sci.
2024,14, 1085. https://doi.org/
10.3390/educsci14101085
Academic Editors: Casandra Harper
and Judy Marquez Kiyama
Received: 30 April 2024
Revised: 25 September 2024
Accepted: 26 September 2024
Published: 4 October 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the author.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
education
sciences
Article
“A Win for All of Us”: A Counterstory on What Counts as
Success in Latinx Students’ College Decision-Making
Leslie Patricia Luqueño
Graduate School of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; lluqueno@stanford.edu
Abstract: This paper utilizes a composite counterstory to address how Latinx first-generation-
to-college, low-income students describe what ‘success’ looks like within their college decision-
making processes and counter traditional perspectives on what should matter as they contemplate
whether and where to pursue higher education. Building upon calls within college decision-making
literature that better encompass the social ecologies of marginalized students, this study centers
the voices of 14 Latinx students who apply to college and, oftentimes, challenge educators and
mainstream narratives about how they should select which institution to attend. What I found is that
students’ decision-making processes cannot be explained through mainstream narratives such as
meritocracy, undermatching theory, or the importance of school prestige; rather, these discourses,
when perpetuated by educators and peers, can be incredibly discouraging and cause dissonance
among students. Instead, students portray the importance of family and collective well-being when
considering where to pursue college, showing the non-academic prioritizations that shape students’
perspectives on ‘success’. Overall, this study provides an essential counterstory against deficit
perspectives surrounding Latinx first-generation, low-income students’ college decision-making and
encourages further exploration of how government funding and initiatives can support students
regardless of what institution they attend.
Keywords: higher education; family; undermatching; counterstory; qualitative methods; Latinx students
1. Introduction
“I’ve never taken prestige too seriously. Because sure I could apply to Harvard or
Stanford, but why should I care that much about them? Will they care about me? Besides
bragging rights, why should I tell them my story?” said Jackie, a low-income Latina student
who was in the process of choosing where and whether to apply to college at the time
of the interview. Jackie had a solid sense of why she wanted to pursue higher education.
For her, making her immigrant mother proud and setting an example for her younger
sisters were the key drivers for applying to college, and though she envisioned a career
in computer science, college was less about the material end goal and more about what
college symbolized to her and her family. As such, when I asked her to rank the importance
of a series of college decision-making factors (affordability, academics, location, familial
sentiments about the college, prestige/selectivity, academic offerings, and social life), she
ranked all but prestige, citing that it was not even a consideration in her college decision-
making process. It is not for a lack of achievement or qualifications for a selective university;
Jackie had a consistently high GPA that might have made her a competitive candidate for
admission into selective private schools or the University of California (UC) system that
her home state provides. However, Jackie was adamant about other factors taking priority
over prestige or even what institution she ultimately ended up at because, for her, as long
as she went to college at a place she felt passionate about, her mom would be happy and,
therefore, she now attends Sacramento State University.
Scholars on low-income, high-achieving students may cite Jackie’s decision to apply
solely to the less selective public university branch of California (California State University
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 1085. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14101085 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education

Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 1085 2 of 23
or CSUs) as a case of undermatching. Undermatching is defined as occasions when
students elect not to apply or attend more selective universities despite these colleges
better matching their academic profiles than the less selective universities they opt for
instead [
1
]. Seen as a detriment to upward mobility, undermatching theory suggests that
low-income students who ‘undermatch’ by attending a less selective college are at risk
of not completing college due to lower graduation rates at these schools [
2
,
3
]. Had they
attended an adequate ‘match’ university, these low-income students would have better
odds of graduating from college and be among more ‘academic-typical’ students rather
than the students present at their less selective institutions [
1
,
4
]. In sum, undermatching
theory presupposes that low-income students often attend the schools that other low-
income students go to versus matches for their academic ability, may “apply to college
in a manner that is not best for their interests”, and “lack information or encouragement
that ‘academic-typical’ students have” [
2
]. Based on statistical techniques, these students
may be better served through selective institutions that match their academic abilities
as opposed to less selective schools that more students from a similar income bracket
attend [
2
]. Undermatching is upheld by narratives of meritocracy and the importance of
institutional prestige, and as such, these mainstream narratives may undermine students’
complex college decision-making processes and reduce them to ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’
decisions [
5
]. According to undermatching research, the goal for these high-achieving
(as defined by academic metrics like GPA and standardized testing) low-income students
would be to provide them adequate information so that they can make the ‘right’ decision
to go to the most selective institution they are accepted to [
1
]. However, undermatching
and its accompanying mainstream narratives narrowly define success as being tied to a
university’s selectivity as opposed to how students may actually complicate normative
assumptions of success.
In my study, I complicate the mainstream narratives about ‘success’ within college
decision-making by portraying counterstories [
6
] from 14 low-income Latinx students who
largely reject the importance of selectivity in their college search due to their attention to
more personally important factors that can help them thrive and challenge notions of under-
matching and meritocracy. By success, I refer to how students conceptualize accomplishing
their goals during the college decision-making process. Although undermatching research
frames success through a measure of school selectivity, the study’s participants complicate
that selectivity should be of utmost importance and instead set their own parameters for
what would help them thrive in college and, ultimately, how the college they end up attend-
ing could help them accomplish that. Many of the students did not attend the most selective
institution they were accepted to due to other priorities during college decision-making.
They would likely be classified as ‘undermatching’ under current definitions and thereby
would not have reached ‘success’. Utilizing data from 28 interviews, 20+ h of participant
observation, and an analysis of students’ college admissions essays, I explore the following
two research questions:
(1)
How do Latinx first-generation-to-college, low-income students conceptualize ‘suc-
cess’ in their college decision-making process?
(2)
How do these students challenge mainstream, deficit narratives about their college
decisions?
I argue that mainstream narratives about ‘success’ within college admissions and
decision-making undermine how Latinx first-generation students set their own priorities
and purpose for higher education in their college decision-making process. This study
demonstrates that students are not solely looking at the academic identity or selectivity
of a school when they make decisions about where to go to college. Rather, students
provide powerful counterstories that articulate why going to college is not an individualistic
academic endeavor but rather a journey where academics matter but so do other factors
like staying connected to family, minimizing financial debt and hardship, and giving
back to the community. I utilize a composite counterstory that compiles these nuanced
narratives and provides an example of how students grapple with competing narratives

Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 1085 3 of 23
about what is important within college decision-making versus how they define their
own priorities through their understanding of education, family, and collective well-being.
Their narratives demonstrate a need to go beyond localizing issues within first-generation
students’ college decision-making process and rather think about ways in which the higher
education system needs to shift in order to support student retention and graduation.
Through the study, I also interrogate how we can uphold students’ varying needs and
purposes for going to college regardless of where they decide to pursue higher education.
2. Literature Review
Before describing students’ counterstories to mainstream notions of ‘success’ within
college decision-making, it is important to first establish the narratives that exist that propel
hegemonic discourse within higher education. First, I begin by describing how college
decision-making research has evolved over time and then transition into detailing the three
mainstream narratives that were apparent in students’ dialogue and in scholarly research.
Doing so allows me to position the students’ counterstories in their relative context within
the U.S. higher education system, as well as portray what exactly students are challenging
through their narratives.
2.1. Latinx Students and the College Decision-Making Process
The college decision-making process, commonly referred to as ‘college choice,’ de-
scribes how prospective higher education students decide whether and where to pursue
higher education [
7
]. College decision-making is a complex undertaking, as students have
to navigate multiple factors of a higher education institution, such as financial cost, location,
academic profile, availability of majors/career pathways, institutional type, and social life,
among other factors that constitute variation among different colleges [
7
,
8
]. The U.S. higher
education system is particularly unique to that of other countries, as virtually any student
can apply to any college without strict test score cut-offs or requirements that do not align
with the standard high school curriculum [
9
]. That being said, students may decide to
apply to certain schools over others based on whether they perceive they may get accepted,
the proximity of the college to their home, and the cost of attendance, which thereby create
conditions that students look for as they make college lists [
10
,
11
]. The impact of external
actors is also important in the study of college decision-making [
12
,
13
]. Scholars assert
that students who have increased access to quality college information, counselors and
advisers, and connections to college-educated adults may be better suited to approach the
complexity of college decision-making and craft institutional lists that best match their
needs and backgrounds [
14
,
15
]. As such, much of the work on college decision-making has
posed students with college-educated parents from middle-class backgrounds as the ideal
for the process while not adequately representing the experiences of Latinx first-generation
students [
10
]. Middle-class students’ direct access to college-educated adults who can guide
them through the college selection and application process, as well as their social networks
and access to high-quality schooling and educational resources, privilege them in a process
that requires heavy research and understanding of the higher education system [
16
,
17
].
Thus, much college decision-making scholarship has elevated middle-class families as
having the adequate resources to ‘choose’ the best institution for their students that meets
their academic and personal needs.
However, in the elevation of a particular group, we run the risk of marginalizing others.
Consequently, Latinx first-generation-to-college, low-income students are often framed
through a deficit perspective that places them as ‘ill-prepared’ to embark on their own
college decision-making processes [
18
]. Deficit perspectives within education constitute
depictions of often-marginalized groups as ‘lacking’ or ‘missing’ traits and knowledge
that are essential for success within educational institutions [
19
,
20
]. Notably, among this
population, concerns over the quality of public K-12 education and available resources
are quite prevalent and are seen to affect the likelihood of college-going [
7
]. Although
deficit orientations sometimes help highlight the stark inequality that marginalized groups

Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 1085 4 of 23
face, they can also damage people’s perceptions of self and justify the mistreatment and
marginalization of people from marginalized groups [21,22].
College decision-making literature is not devoid of deficit perspectives of Latinx
students. There have been particular concerns that first-generation students do not have
the same social capital as other groups because they are less likely to have a college-
educated relative or college-educated social network [
23
]. Additionally, the presence of
‘chain migration’ among Latinx students is particularly high, meaning that Latinx students
are more likely to attend colleges where they know a friend or relative was attending, which
typically constitutes community colleges [
7
]. In fact, the ‘overrepresentation’ of Latinxs
in community colleges has been treated as worrisome due to lower graduation rates at
these institutions and because even students who have the qualifications to enter more
selective institutions still end up at junior colleges due to misinformation or following their
peers [
7
]. Unlike their White, middle-class counterparts, Latinx students are seen through a
lens of concern due to their college decision-making, and so are their families [
11
,
18
]. There
have also been concerns about familismo, or the behavior of placing familial priorities
above one’s individual needs amongst Latinx families [
24
,
25
]. Familismo is sometimes
framed as a negative aspect of Latinx families, as it details how individuals may put their
desires second to those of the family’s and, therefore, may miss out on opportunities,
particularly surrounding work and education [
25
]. Within college choice, the fear is
accentuated, as familismo is seen as something that limits a student’s higher education
decisions because students may be more likely to prioritize staying close to home, saving
money, and responding to familial needs [
26
]. Therefore, the family can be painted as a
limiting, rather than a supportive, facet of students’ college decision-making and, therefore,
may contribute to undermatching [24].
My work acknowledges the various inequalities that compound to make Latinx low-
income, first-generation students’ college decision-making processes difficult but also
builds upon asset-based perspectives that highlight the strengths students bring to the
process rather than what they ‘lack’. Recently, scholars have pointed to how Latinx students
develop powerful sources of knowledge and social networks that fill the gap in college
information they experience at school [
10
,
27
,
28
]. Other work has pointed to the essential
work of siblings in trailblazing the path of higher education for their families, often act-
ing as key resources for their younger siblings when they embark on their own college
journeys [29,30].
However, what is also needed within this scholarship is a consideration of
how students approach the distinct, tangible considerations of college decision-making and
how they redefine what is important to look for in higher education institutions and the
college journey itself, which may be different from that of other racial and socioeconomic
groups. Currently, research highlights the different aspects that students consider, yet there
is not always a deep exploration into how students decide what is important to them as they
approach the various factors of higher education institutions and their priorities [
31
,
32
].
Doing so can help us better understand the convergence between students’ purpose for
higher education and their college decision-making considerations.
2.2. Mainstream Narratives and Perspectives on ‘Success’ in College Decision-Making
In what follows, I describe three mainstream narratives that surround college decision-
making: meritocracy, undermatching, and school selectivity/prestige. Although there are
many other narratives that surround U.S. higher education as well, I chose to focus on these
three, and students’ interviews spoke to themes that are relevant within these research
categories. In order to demonstrate how students counter mainstream narratives, I must
first describe what they are, as well as why they appeal to the U.S. public.
2.2.1. The Myth of Meritocracy and Its Connection to College Decision-Making
A meritocracy is a social system where individuals’ success is based on their individual
talents, abilities, and achievements rather than other factors, such as their socioeconomic
status or privilege [
33
]. Although education is sometimes framed to be a meritocracy,

Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 1085 5 of 23
scholars have demonstrated that instead, we have a ‘myth’ of meritocracy that obscures
the underlying social structures and factors that shape access to opportunities [
34
,
35
]. For
example, higher education institutions may be looking for students with strong academic
profiles, evidence of extracurricular activity involvement, and likelihood to graduate within
the institution [
36
]. Under the myth of meritocracy, we may think that achievement on these
different metrics is based on talent alone rather than social structures that may privilege
certain students over others [
34
,
37
]. However, the myth of meritocracy is troubling as it
does not acknowledge the larger structural inequalities in place that shape the opportunities
and resources available to students, especially those from racially and socioeconomically
marginalized backgrounds [
38
]. As Amy Liu puts it, “There may be a tendency to view
students who do not reach a higher level of educational attainment as having failed on
their own terms” [
39
]. Therefore, within college decision-making literature, if students
select institutions that are not as selective or decide not to attend college altogether, it may
be easy to place blame on students and deem this as a failure rather than acknowledging
the social systems and structures that may explain these outcomes [
5
]. Furthermore, it is
also a way in which those who do gain admission into selective institutions and decide to
attend them can justify their admission as one that was based on their merit alone rather
than their proximity to wealth and power [
38
]. The veil of meritocracy is a sticky one as it
legitimates current power and social structures and is reinforced by individuals in power
and educational institutions in order to protect their own interests [
34
,
38
]. Therefore, the
myth of meritocracy is a mainstream narrative within higher education that may undermine
the college decision-making and agency of Latinx first-generation students and frame their
decisions to attend their selected institutions (especially if the institutions are less selective
colleges) as their own fault or ‘lack’ of merit.
2.2.2. The Upholding of Educational Prestige and School Selectivity
In the 1980s, college rankings were created in an effort to respond to an increasingly
competitive and large higher education market where it was hard to find centralized
information about how schools fared against one another [
40
]. Additionally, the growth
of globalization within higher education led to an increased need for ‘customers’ to know
what different higher education institutions could offer them, especially as investing in a
college education is a costly process [
41
]. Therefore, college rankings emerged as a way
of consolidating information about the thousands of higher education institutions in the
country and offer a form of comparison among institutions that otherwise may look very
similar from the outside [
40
,
42
]. However, ranking institutions is a very difficult endeavor.
For example, a small liberal arts college may excel in its teaching and individualized
support toward students but fall miles behind research-intensive universities in their
research production and output. A community college may have one of the most diverse
student populations in the nation but struggle in terms of graduation rates and completion.
However, because of the different functions of U.S. colleges—which include teaching,
research, and service—establishing metrics to compare institutions with one another is
incredibly difficult [
43
,
44
]. However, it has been done. The U.S. News Best Colleges and
Universities rankings list is the most popular and is viewed by thousands of students and
their families as they consider what colleges to apply to [
45
]. The same universities have
tended to dominate its main list since the list’s inception: Harvard University, Stanford
University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the rest of the Ivy+ Universities
that typically switch among each other but are more or less stable in the top 30 of the
list [
9
]. However, this dominance stems from these institutions being poised as the ‘ideal’,
given that the metrics are focused on research output, per-student spending, graduation
rates, peer assessment (i.e., how peer institutions rank each other), and standardized
test scores [
46
]. In other words, most selective institutions are strong in aspects that are
rewarded in the rankings, which explains why they retain their prestige and level within
college rankings year-to-year.

Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 1085 6 of 23
School selectivity and prestige have a strong influence on the American perception of
higher education. Year after year, the number of applications at most selective universities
increases, which often drops their admission rates even further. College access programs
(i.e., LEDA Scholars) and scholarship competitions (i.e., QuestBridge National College
Match, the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation) have emerged to provide ‘pathways’ into the most
selective institutions [
47
–
49
]. Even in research on first-generation-to-college, low-income
students, studies tend to focus on the students who pursue school at the most selective
universities. Although it is important to understand how first-generation college students
fare within historically elite institutions, these are a minority of where first-generation
students go to college [
49
,
50
]. Therefore, studies on college decision-making have the
opportunity to broaden how first-generation students are seen within higher education
research and not only focus on the select few who enroll in the most selective institutions.
Furthermore, there is an opportunity to explore how first-generation Latinx students
who are still in their college decision-making process interpret narratives surrounding
prestige and school selectivity and whether it plays a role in their considerations. Especially
because it is the fastest-growing racial minority group applying to college, it is essential
that we delve deeper into the heterogeneity of Latinx students and how their intersectional
identities (i.e., class, gender, first-generation status) shape their college decision-making
as well as the role that families play in that process. As the counterstory that I present
later in the paper suggests, prestige and school selectivity are dominant narratives that are
perpetuated by educators and the media but do not necessarily align with what students
consider to be most important in their own educational trajectories.
2.2.3. Should We Be Looking for the ‘Missing One-Offs’?: Undermatching Concerns among
First-Generation Latinx Students
Undermatching is a theory popularized by the economics of education subfield to
describe “when students fail to enroll at a college or university that possesses a level of
selectivity their academic credentials would allow them to attend [
4
]”. Scholars have found
various predictors that they believe contribute to undermatching, such as socioeconomic
status, background, environment/context, and orientation toward college [
3
,
4
,
51
]. Particu-
larly among low-income, first-generation-to-college students, undermatching is theorized
to occur because of a lack of quality information about applying and choosing higher
education institutions, observance of their income-similar peers attending less selective
schools, and aversion toward loans and debts that drive students to pursue cheaper school
options [
2
,
24
]. Reportedly, low-income, first-generation, and racial minority students tend
to undermatch the most, with Hispanic low-income students seen as the most likely to en-
roll at a higher education institution that is below their academic profile [
24
]. Some research
has sought to find the connection between college choice factors and undermatching, with
the undermatching phenomenon among Hispanic students being connected to financial
concerns as well as familismo and the desire to stay close to home [
24
,
51
]. That being said,
measuring undermatching is not based on students’ college decision-making processes
but rather on statistical connections between different potential college choice factors and
the likelihood of undermatching [
52
]. Although correlations can be established between
college choice factors and undermatching, the quantitative outlook cannot give full insight
into how students think about their higher education decisions or the process by which
they process information and ‘choices’. Therefore, we must be critical of what quantitative
depictions assume of students’ decision-making and make a concerted effort also to expand
qualitatively how students’ processes are influenced by race, class, and more [53].
Undermatching is difficult to operationalize, as the way studies currently calculate it is
based on the likelihood that students would have gained admission to a selective university
given their academic profile [
52
]. Although researchers cannot know for sure that the
student would have obtained admission at a more selective university than the one they
chose to attend, nor do they have complete insight into the student’s college choice process,
the studies claim that given the pre-collegiate academic profiles of the student combined

Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 1085 7 of 23
with the average academic profile of selective institution tiers, they likely would have
had a more selective university option [
2
]. The statistical modeling utilized to establish
undermatching is generally based on what Michael Bastedo and Allyson Flaster term
“researcher-generated hierarchies of students and institutions”. As they state, “[undermatch
studies] present the ideal social order as the attendance of higher ability students at highly
selective colleges and lower ability students at low- or non-selective colleges; deviations
from that order are labeled as mismatches. Mismatches are problematic not only because
they represent missed educational opportunities but also because researchers presume
higher ability students are best poised to capitalize on the abundant resources provided
at selective colleges [
52
]”. As one of the few methodological and conceptual challenges
to undermatching work and research, Bastedo and Flaster poignantly point us toward
understanding that undermatching is essentially a researcher-created dilemma, as it is
based on the classification of statistical outputs by researchers and not necessarily students,
educators, or institutions.
Criticism of the theory stems from an improper consideration of the factors that
influence college decision-making outside of an institution’s academic profile [
52
,
54
]. To
be fair, many utilizers of undermatching theory mention that college decision-making is
not necessarily part of their analysis, while it is implicated in how students make decisions
on where to attend college [
51
]. However, the minimization of college decision-making as
a concern for studies on undermatching suggests that it is not being properly considered
as to why it seems students are selecting colleges below their academic achievement
level. The focus on the academic entity and selectivity of a college can obscure the factors
that are driving students’ college decision-making process and why students may go to
college in the first place [
24
]. Higher education is inherently an academic endeavor, but
it is also accompanied by meanings constructed by students’ perspectives, contexts, and
priorities [
55
]. Therefore, should we read students’ ‘undermatching’ as a concern when
perhaps they have other priorities beyond the academic match of an institution?
In sum, this paper attempts to portray how mainstream narratives surrounding meri-
tocracy, undermatching, and school selectivity can obscure the complex college decision-
making process of Latinx students and invalidate their own priorities for higher education.
I also demonstrate how they manifest on the ground through educators and peers, as well
as the effect that narratives have on students as they engage in college decision-making.
What my research adds to prior research are the voices of students actively going through
the college decision-making process, something that is generally absent in work on under-
matching and school selectivity [
52
]. Through their narratives, we can learn about how
students challenge traditional notions about the purpose and priorities of higher education,
emphasizing their agency and power in the face of a new educational step for themselves
and their families.
3. The Study and Methods
In this study, I employ grounded theory and counterstorytelling methodology to
demonstrate how first-generation-to-college, low-income, Latinx students exhibit a complex
college decision-making process that rejects and resists the simplification of going to college
as a solely academic endeavor [
6
,
56
]. When I began the study, I sought to explore how
children of Latinx immigrants considered family as they chose whether and where to pursue
higher education. As my results will demonstrate, family was a heavy contributor to their
higher education decision-making process, but they also pushed back on the idea that
family commitments and responsibilities had to be at odds with effective college decision-
making. Therefore, I opt for a counterstorytelling methodology that highlights students’
resistance to mainstream narratives about ‘success’ within college decision-making.
3.1. Counterstorytelling Methodology
Counterstorytelling is a Critical Race Theory methodology that resists deficit and
dominant narratives about marginalized communities and reclaims the agency of these

Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 1085 8 of 23
populations to tell their own stories [
6
,
57
]. Daniel Solorzano and Tara Yosso describe the
power of counterstorytelling as “a tool for exposing, analyzing, and challenging majori-
tarian stories of racial privilege [and] can shatter complacency, challenge the dominant
discourse on race, and further the struggle for racial reform [6]”. Especially within higher
education discourse, first-generation-to-college racialized students are often described in
majoritarian narratives as being ‘late to the game’ when it comes to preparing for college,
holding incorrect and incomplete knowledge about higher education, and not having the
necessary skillsets or resources to develop a college-going orientation [
10
,
27
]. However,
the narratives that uphold this perspective generally stem from researchers’ interpretations
of students’ college decision-making process rather than the actual thinking processes
students engage in [
13
]. The students already actively countered traditional notions of
what matters in one’s college decision-making process, and therefore, the use of counter-
storytelling to discuss the reductionary nature of majoritarian narratives about success
seemed like an appropriate way of theorizing their stories and processes.
The mainstream narratives I mentioned earlier generally follow deficit-oriented think-
ing, which claims that low-income students, particularly first-generation college students,
make decisions that are antithetical to their success due to their backgrounds and lack of
quality knowledge. For example, undermatching theory localizes the issue of college non-
completion among low-income first-generation college applicants at the individual level,
suggesting that the students’ lack of information or knowledge leads to them choosing
non-selective institutions incorrectly over schools that may better ‘match’ their academic
abilities. Although advocates of undermatching theory make an appropriate case for
how educational inequality limits access to quality information about higher education
for lower-income students their resolution oftentimes revolves around fixing students’
higher education decision-making rather than promoting a higher education system where
students, regardless of where they pursue college, can be supported in obtaining their
degrees [
58
,
59
]. Furthermore, the narratives reduce students’ decision-making to an aca-
demic perspective when, in reality, students make decisions based on a wide range of social
and cultural factors [
8
]. Counterstorytelling provides a much-needed perspective that is
rooted in students’ meaning-making and experiences to demonstrate why undermatching
theory underestimates first-generation students’ ability to make the best higher educa-
tion decisions for themselves through its deficit perspective. Additionally, it empowers
applicants rather than statistical outputs to explain what factors matter in their college
decision-making process and displays that academic matching may not be a primary con-
cern. Given the use of meritocracy, undermatching theory, and institutional prestige in
practice and policy, counterstorytelling may change how we think about college selectivity
and academic standing as matters for students’ multifaceted needs when choosing a higher
education institution.
3.2. Methods
The data leveraged in this paper stem from a yearlong qualitative study with
14 first-generation-to-college, low-income Latinx students from southeast Los Angeles
during the 2021–2022 school year. The study’s broad focus looked at how Latinx students
contemplated various tangible considerations as they applied to and eventually enrolled
in a postsecondary institution, including factors such as finances, location, and familial
input. I conducted two interviews with each participant, one as they were actively applying
to postsecondary institutions (fall semester of their senior year) and one after they had
decided whether and where to pursue higher education after graduation (summer after
their senior year). To participate in the study, students had to identify as the child of at
least one Latin American parent and be applying to at least one postsecondary educational
institution (including community colleges and vocational schools). All participants from
two-parent households identified that both parents were from a Latin American country,
and given southeast Los Angeles’ demographics, they were unsurprisingly from Mexico
and/or Central America (El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala). Although not part of

Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 1085 9 of 23
the formal recruitment criteria, all students in the study ended up being first-generation-to-
college students and were low-income/poor socioeconomically, as well. Socioeconomic
class status was determined through a combination of the highest parental education
level, eligibility for free/reduced lunch, and annual familial income utilizing California’s
metrics of income status at the time. The students attended Campana High School—a
predominantly Latinx, Title I school in southeast Los Angeles. Notably, the school is a case
of extreme racial/ethnic homogeneity, as 99% are Latinx, and over 70% of students qualify
for free or reduced lunch, indicating a majority low-income student body. Campana High
School’s racial and socioeconomic student makeup means that most students would be
within the first generation of their families to go to college and face various financial and
social factors in the pursuit of higher education due to educational and social inequality.
However, they also align with previous work on similar populations who strongly uphold
education and whose families motivate their higher education aspirations [19,60].
Due to the longitudinal nature of the study, I was able to learn about how students’
perspectives on college decision-making changed over time from when they were idealizing
where they might want to attend to ultimately having to make a final decision based on
the options presented to them. All the participants had been considering higher education
for several years, and most articulated that they had set college as a goal for themselves
since middle school. As such, the participants had crafted long-term plans on how to get
to college; 11 of the 14 participants participated in at least one college access program
(i.e., AVID,
College Bound), and all took at least two Advanced Placement/Honors courses
to increase college readiness. Although not part of the recruitment criteria, the students in
this group performed strongly in school based on academic metrics; they all completed their
A–G requirements (course requisites that need to be taken for eligibility to California public
university admissions), and the average unweighted GPA for the group was 3.5 out of 4.0.
Therefore, this group was a particularly ideal sample to learn about how first-generation,
low-income Latinx students make decisions about college, given that their strong academic
performance makes them more likely to have various higher education options. Given the
study’s focus on students’ meaning-making surrounding college decision-making factors,
as well as learning how they came to have the perspectives they do, the research design was
conducive to allowing students to counter assumptions about what should matter when
selecting a college and telling their own narratives of how they make decisions. Participant
observation and college essay data were collected and complements the interview findings,
as they give more insight into the students’ contexts and their social ecology’s influence
on their decision-making processes. For the participant observation, I was able to observe
counselor-organized college application workshops, teacher-led college panels, and student-
organized application working sessions. Access to the site and permission to observe was
granted by the school, educators, and students present in the spaces.
3.3. The Role of Researcher Positionality in the Study
My positionality was a key factor in students’ articulating counterstories because, in a
lot of ways, the participants and I are similar in terms of racial and socioeconomic back-
grounds but different because of the educational institutions we ascribe to. I believe that
the similarities and differences drove interesting conversations with the participants about
what factors matter within the college decision-making process, as my own positionality
as a student at a selective institution made it a point of discussion for the interviewees.
In some ways, I share a similar background as the participants as I am the daughter of
Mexican immigrants, grew up low-income in southeast Los Angeles, and was the first in my
family to pursue college. Students often identified our similarities and used phrases like,
“you know how it is” or “as you probably experienced too” to establish their understanding
of how we share some background and context. The ‘insider’ status I held in data collection
helped build rapport with students and established some common ground that helped
students to be more vulnerable and honest in the interview process [
61
]. Additionally,
my positionality allowed me to leverage cultural intuition—or the unique viewpoints that

Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 1085 10 of 23
Chicana/Latina scholars bring to their work that help explain phenomena we are proximate
to [
62
]. Students’ observance and response to my positionality and cultural intuition helped
build genuine, honest relationships that, in turn, assisted in uncovering phenomena that
may otherwise be difficult to learn about.
However, students were also quick to point out my status at an elite university and
drew it as a differentiator between what they presumed to have been my school decision-
making process and their own priorities. Admittedly, part of my curiosity about the
students’ counterstories on meritocracy and selectivity was precisely because they seemed
opposite to my own college decision-making process. I have attended two selective higher
education institutions, and prestige, even if implicitly, was a driving factor behind how I
chose where to attend. Therefore, I believe my positionality as an outsider in this respect
was beneficial because I served as a direct foil for what the students did not uphold
in their college decision-making process, making comparison a good way to draw out
counterstories and also be increasingly aware of them. Students would make comments like,
“no offense to Stanford but
. . .
” or “I know you go to a private school but I think they’re
. . .
”,
which opened up space for them to critique what they thought might have mattered to me,
and more generally, what they believed mainstream society and the educational system
ascribe value to.
3.4. Data Analysis
All interview data and participant observation notes were qualitatively coded using
NVivo through two rounds: an inductive round where codes were generated based on the
words and phrases that the participants utilized and a thematic coding round utilizing a
codebook that was composed through the inductive round [
63
]. One of the parent codes
was ‘college factors’, which included finances, location, familial opinions about college,
prestige/selectivity, academics, and social life (further explained in Table 1). When further
dissecting the mentions of each factor during the interview (including students’ ranking
and explanation of the factors), it became apparent that prestige/selectivity had several
mentions in students’ interviews, but unlike the other factors, most of the students spoke
negatively about that factor or rejected its importance altogether. Put differently, students
spoke a lot about prestige/selectivity but rejected that it mattered in their decision-making
process, suggesting that students were aware that it may be part of mainstream narratives
about prestige mattering in college decision-making but not necessarily in theirs. The
most prevalent factors across interviews were finances and location, which were often
accompanied by conversations about family. Although these factors were associated with
family, students overall ranked familial opinions as being of lower importance because
they reported that their families were generally supportive of wherever they attended, yet
students still thought about how proximity/distance from home and financial decisions
would affect their families. Inversely, college prestige and selectivity were not ranked within
the top three factors on any student’s list. Academics were primarily discussed in terms
of major availability but did not have much weight in students’ final decisions of where
to attend, which prompted further exploration into how non-academic factors shaped
both perspectives of prestige mattering as well as priorities within college decision-making
as a whole.
Given the ranking results, as well as accompanying explanations on each factor
throughout the interview, I conducted narrative analysis after thematic coding to under-
stand comprehensively how and why prestige/school selectivity was of the least concern
for the students (ranked 5th or 6th amongst all students) and what in students’ perspectives
and meaning-making led to the prioritization of other factors over prestige/selectivity.
It is important to also note that students seemingly selected less selective institutions
even if they were accepted (more information about each student’s choice is presented
in Appendix A). Therefore, both their interview responses and their ultimate decisions
suggest that school selectivity and even academic entity were not consequential in students’
decision-making, especially at the point of deciding between schools they were admitted to.

Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 1085 11 of 23
Narrative analysis is an ideal analytical method to dissect how individuals’ personal stories
connect to broader social and cultural processes and affect their interpretation of the world
around them [
64
]. Through students’ comprehensive narratives, the counter-storytelling
methodology of this paper was born, as a reading of their stories and accounts reveals
a resistance to mainstream narratives that suggest school selectivity and prestige should
matter, as well as how this also counteracts scholarship on undermatching and meritocracy.
Therefore, the data analysis process, from inductive coding of interview transcripts to
narrative analysis of students’ counterstories, leads to the structure of the paper revolving
around students’ retellings of what was important to their college decision-making process
and places them as the experts in what matters within that process, especially for first-
generation, low-income Latinx students like themselves. In order to increase the validity of
the analysis, member checks were conducted in order to ensure that I accurately depicted
the students’ counterstories and perspectives [
63
]. Furthermore, I used the triangulation of
qualitative methods (interviews, field observations, artifact analysis) in order to maximize
my understanding of students’ contexts and assemble the narratives based on my multiple
points of contact with each participant [
65
]. Although each student’s counterstory was
unique and nuanced, they shared common threads about how they defined success for
themselves, the importance of family and collective well-being in their college-decision
making process, and the tension between their priorities and what they deemed external
actors, like educators and peers, wanted them to consider. In order to condense the data
into a comprehensible narrative that shows the complex process of decision-making, I
present the results through a composite narrative.
Table 1. Factors and Definitions Provided to Students During Ranking Exercise.
Factor Definition Presented to the Students
Finances Considerations surrounding the cost of attendance, financial aid, familial expected
contribution, etc.
Location
Considerations surrounding where a college is located, including proximity/distance
from home, in-state vs. out-of-state, rural/urban/suburban, etc.
Academics Considerations surrounding the academic side of a college, including availability of
major, class sizes, study abroad opportunities, difficulty of coursework, etc.
Familial Opinions/Sentiments
Considerations surrounding how one’s family responds to a particular college
decision, opinions shared by family members, particular desires expressed by family
(i.e., staying close to home), etc.
Social Life Considerations surrounding the social side of a college, including extracurricular
activities, socializing/networking opportunities, party scene, dorm life, etc.
Prestige/School Selectivity
Considerations surrounding the status of a college, including college ranking, strength
of academic programs, acceptance rate, overall name recognition of college, etc.
3.5. Presentation of Results: The Composite Narrative
In order to present the study’s results, I opted for a composite narrative that utilizes
data from all participants to construct a singular, data-driven narrative that showcases
the presence of majoritarian narratives with students’ college decision-making processes
as well as how they counter these mainstream projections of what should be important.
Composite narratives within social science research are typically fictionalized stories that
use ethnographic or interview data to narratively describe a social phenomenon [
66
,
67
].
Instead of presenting data categorically or through a series of different participants’ quotes
and excerpts, the composite narrative uses data from multiple participants to tell a story
that represents the phenomena we want to capture [
67
]. As Rebecca Willis points out in her
own usage of composite narratives within sociological research, “narratives allow research
to be presented in a way which acknowledges the complexities of individual motivations
and outlooks, whilst drawing out more generalized learning and understanding [67]”.
The composite narrative is ideal for this study because it allows me to draw out
how the majoritarian narrative plays out in students’ lived experiences, as well as how
students counter and resist the mainstream assumptions about their college decision-

Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 1085 12 of 23
making. Furthermore, many of the students recreated important ‘scenes’ in their college
decision-making process, commonly conversations with counselors, family members, and
peers. However, a single quotation or series of quotes across interviews cannot adequately
capture the recreation of scenes that happened during the interviews, where the students
actually mimicked voices, rehashed frustrating or difficult situations, and other storytelling
tactics that demonstrated how they were countering mainstream narratives. The composite
narrative also helps center thinking processes, which are central to work on decision-
making but can be hard to depict without a narrative that ties in self-reflection, external
opinions, and the overall decision-making that manifests as a result of the two. A narrative
approach allows me to disclose the scenes they recreated as well as demonstrate their
description of events, thinking processes, and after-the-matter retrospection.
Instead of choosing a singular student’s narrative, the composite narrative allows for
the compilation of multiple student interviews and crafts a story that best communicates
the findings across the interviews. However, it should be noted that as a writer, I had to
make difficult decisions about how the narrative would be presented in a way that best
captured the diversity of responses among participants. For example, one decision I had to
make was choosing the ‘story arc’ of the fictitious student and their characteristics. I opted
to follow the story arc of one of the study’s participants (Rose), who was a female student
who was choosing between UC Santa Barbara and CSU Fullerton and was an only child in a
two-parent household. I decided to follow her story, as her college decision-making journey
captured many of the themes that participants talked about, including having a generally
supportive family, being at odds with educators’ opinions at times, and deciding between
two colleges that both have positive qualities yet one is distinguished for its increased
selectivity. Rose also represents identities held by most of the participants: she is first-
generation-to-college, female, low-income, and comes from a mixed-documentation-status
family. Although she is the only only child in the sample, I still retained this feature in
the composite narrative, as her commitment to family resounded across participants and
perhaps was even further accentuated as she comes from a close-knit, small family. Because
I decided to follow her characteristics and decision-making process, I was able to stay close
to the data because her scenario was lived out and is part of the dataset. However, within
her ‘story arc’, I also utilize data from the other participants, as I include their quotes and
recreations of conversations with counselors and their families. Therefore, I utilize the
fictitious character of ‘Joanna’, which is aligned with the student’s (Rose) narrative but
includes stories and quotes from the other participants. Another key decision was choosing
the gender of the character. With a majority-female participant sample and because I chose
to follow Rose’s story arc, I opted for a female student. However, I did include the male
participants’ data in the construction of the composite narrative, though the gendered
dynamic of college decision-making may be collapsed through this decision. That being
said, though I chose a female character, I did not make gender a particularly salient part of
this narrative in order to honor that the data do not tell a singular-gender story.
For composite narratives, it is methodologically important that the story does not
become too ‘fictitious’ and is actually grounded in the data [
68
]. To reduce the distance
between the narrative and the data, the three scenes I wrote are scenarios that happened
to at least four of the participants. As such, I opted for three narrative ‘scenes’ that
multiple participants described: (1) a conversation with the school’s college counselor,
(2) a conversation
with the student’s parent, and (3) an experience from college signing
day. I followed Colette Cann and Erin McCloskey’s method for constructing the composite
narrative, using bolding and scene structure strategically to demonstrate how the data con-
struct the counterstory [
69
]. I bolded the text that stems directly from students’ interviews.
The bolded parts within quotations are verbatim from students’ interviews. The bolded
parts outside of quotations stem from the data directly, paraphrasing what students said in
their interviews to create the non-verbal context for the story (emotions, after-the-event
thinking). The remaining text is utilized to construct a full story, still stemming from
student data, but more paraphrased in order to establish continuity and narrativity in the

Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 1085 13 of 23
story. Ultimately, the composite narrative allows for a more authentic recreation of students’
counterstorytelling that allows us to learn about their thoughts and feelings surrounding
majoritarian narratives as well as what helps them resist and counter these hegemonic
depictions of ‘success’.
4. Results
In what follows, I depict a composite counterstory in three scenes. The counterstory
revolves around the fictitious character, Joanna, who is an academically strong, first-
generation-to-college, low-income Latina student attending Campana High School. She is
part of the AVID program, which is a college access program that helped her throughout
her four years of high school learn about higher education and eventually craft her college
list. Joanna has been admitted to several universities, including UC Santa Barbara, CSU
Fullerton, CSU Los Angeles, and CSU Long Beach. Her main academic consideration was
the availability of her prospective major, Psychology, and she was sure to apply only to
colleges that had a Psychology major. At the time of application, she was only going to
apply to universities that were a one-hour commute or less from her home in Campana, and
she solely considered schools where she could live at home. However, her AVID teacher
and college counselor encouraged her to apply to UC Santa Barbara because of Joanna’s
GPA, which ‘matches’ the academic profile of the institution. Despite wanting to attend a
UC, as UC Los Angeles was her dream school, her rejection from that institution meant that
the only UC option she had was UC Santa Barbara. She was well-informed about UC Santa
Barbara; she and her family visited the campus after her acceptance and she had spoken
with fellow Campana High alums who attended UC Santa Barbara. Particularly appealing
about UC Santa Barbara was its picturesque campus, as well as financial aid opportunities
for Joanna. However, CSU Fullerton was considerably more appealing to Joanna, as the
one-hour distance from home meant she would be able to commute, whereas a two-hour
drive would mean that Joanna had to live in a dorm on campus. The narrative begins with
Joanna deciding between her university acceptances, primarily contemplating UC Santa
Barbara and CSU Fullerton.
Scene 1 describes Joanna’s conversation with her college counselor about her higher
education decisions. Scene 1 is meant to represent the majoritarian narratives that students
often face, particularly from educators like college counselors. As detailed below, Joanna
experiences assumptions about what should be important in her decision-making process,
including the difference in selectivity between the two schools, as well as the idea of
college being a space to grow independent from the family. Joanna experiences emotional
turmoil, which is meant to demonstrate the effect of majoritarian narratives being utilized
to undermine students’ priorities and self-definitions of ‘success’.
Scene 2 describes Joanna’s reactions after the conversation with the counselor and
transitions into a discussion with her mom. This scene articulates how students’ families
play an important role in contextualizing what matters to the student and how their priori-
ties are shaped through an understanding of collective well-being and familial cohesion.
The scene also serves as part of the counterstory, as the conversation portrays how students
define their own ‘success’ within college decision-making, as well as how their priorities
may not align with mainstream narratives yet still may be powerful anchors in the higher
education trajectory.
Finally, scene 3 describes Joanna going through college signing day—a new Campana
High School tradition where the senior class shares where they will be attending college in
the fall with their peers. Although meant to be a celebratory event, the story tells how it can
be a nerve-wracking experience, as students have to share decisions that others may not
understand. However, as many of the students in the study share, Joanna comes to peace
with, regardless of others not understanding, her decision to attend CSU Fullerton instead
of UC Santa Barbara; she knows that she made the best decision for her and her family.

Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 1085 14 of 23
4.1. Scene 1: Santa Barbara Isn’t That Far—How Majoritarian Narratives of ‘Success’ within
College Decision-Making Manifest amongst Educators
Joanna was nervous as her mandatory appointment with the college counselor ap-
proached. She had acceptance letters from UC Santa Barbara, CSU Fullerton, CSU Long
Beach, CSU Los Angeles, and CSU Dominguez Hills. Joanna had already narrowed down
her list to UC Santa Barbara and CSU Fullerton; she visited both campuses and really liked
the environments in both. Plus, they each had several majors in the social sciences that
she could explore, including Psychology, her ideal major. However, the reality was that
even as Joanna presented two options to her counselor, she had already contemplated for a
long time that UC Santa Barbara did not seem feasible given its two-hour distance from her
home. At the time of applying, she did not realize just how heavy the piece about leaving
home for college would be in her decision-making process. She applied to UC Santa
Barbara because of a recommendation from her teacher, who stated, “[you] have really
good grades [Joanna], I see you’re applying to UCLA but why don’t you also apply to
UC Santa Barbara or UC San Diego?”. Joanna had already been hesitant to apply to UCSB
and UCSD because they were a two-hour commute from home, meaning she would have
to live in a dorm at these institutions and perhaps not get to visit her family as frequently
due to a lack of car transportation. That being said, she added UC Santa Barbara to appease
her teacher and try her luck at being admitted to a UC.
As part of the AVID program, she had a mandatory meeting with the college counselor
before she selected which institution to attend. The AVID program is a school-based college
access program designed for college-aspiring students. A large part of the participants in
the study were a part of AVID during their 4 years of high school. Through the program,
they took a yearly course that covered college application requirements, preparation for
necessary application components, i.e., college application essays and standardized tests,
individualized college list crafting support, and field trips to local colleges/universities. At
Campana High School, it primarily supports students with unweighted GPAs of 3.0 and
above and who take AP/honors level courses regularly. She looked forward to meeting
with the college counselor to chat about how to submit her enrollment deposit to CSU
Fullerton. However, before Joanna could even disclose what she wanted to get out of the
meeting, Ms. Lenteria (the college counselor) asked her what schools she had narrowed
down to and what the financial aid packages looked like. Joanna shared which institutions
she was admitted to, handed over the financial aid letters, and told her she was ultimately
considering UC Santa Barbara or CSU Fullerton.
The counselor stated, “After reviewing your choices, UC Santa Barbara seems clear
to me, right? The loans are minimal, especially considering that your grants pay almost
everything, including the dorm. And you got to visit, so that’s great, you’re familiar
with the campus, that’s a big head start. I’m sure you’ve already seen they have a great
psychology program. So you’re going to pick UC Santa Barbara, right? It’s the best
college you got into; the Cal States are nice, but it’s not the same as going straight to a UC,
it’s more competitive to get in, and your financial aid looks pretty good”.
Joanna started to get teary-eyed because she did not really know what to do. Still, she
told Ms. Lenteria, “I don’t think so. I’m leaning toward Cal State Fullerton; it’s closer to
home, and as you know, I’m really close to my family, so I think a two-hour commute
would be too much for us”. Joanna tried to keep her composure, but she could tell that the
counselor was perplexed, placing her hand on her chin as she thought about what Joanna
just said.
Ms. Lenteria responded, with a heavy sigh in her voice, “You’re gonna have to leave
your family eventually, and Santa Barbara is not that far. Joanna, it’s a very prestigious
school, and I can promise you that many students would like to have the success that
you do”. Joanna nodded, taking several seconds to respond. Ms. Lenteria was right; many
of her peers had expressed that Joanna should feel lucky that she had the options she did.
Additionally, she had received counterarguments from friends and educators about UC
Santa Barbara being far away. They insisted that a two-hour drive was actually quite close;

Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 1085 15 of 23
however, Joanna’s conceptualization of ‘distance’ was informed by the fact that as an only
child, she felt like an essential member of her small family, and therefore she conceived
of proximity in a different way. Consequently, Joanna experienced a lot of distress, given
what she thought she wanted versus what external actors were communicating.
“But what if something happens to me and I need my family? What if I don’t
have mom around? I don’t know what I’d do without my family members, they’re my
support system. They are my rock and have supported me my whole life”, Joanna stated,
professing her fear of being distant from integral familial support should she choose to
attend UC Santa Barbara.
The counselor sighed and told Joanna that it seemed like she had made up her mind,
so their conversation was just going in circles. The counselor ended with, “Come back to
me if you change your mind, you’ve got a good option here”. Joanna tried to hold her
composure until she left the room, crying because she felt like she’d been misunderstood
and judged for her commitment to staying close to home. For Joanna, her commitment
to family involved being present in the home space and supporting her parents where
she could, even if she was a student full-time. Joanna never returned to the counselor’s
office, even when she needed help submitting her enrollment deposit or requesting her
final high school transcript.
4.2. Scene 2: “I Want a Win for All of Us”—The Family as a Fundamental Priority within College
Decision-Making
Joanna, still shaken up from the tumultuous conversation with her counselor, was
in distress as she sat around the dinner table with her parents that evening. Her mom
noticed Joanna looking down as Joanna helped set the table and asked her what was
going on.
“Ms. Lenteria is saying I should go to UC Santa Barbara. She says it’s the best school
I got into so that I’d basically be wrong if I chose to go somewhere else. And if I had
gotten into UCLA, I’d have a good UC option that is near us but that just didn’t happen
for me”, Joanna shared, contemplating how much to reveal to her mom, as she didn’t want
to alarm her. Joanna often held back telling her parents hard details from school because
she did not want to worry them or cause them any anguish. They were predominantly
supportive of whatever educational decisions Joanna made, but she often considered how
her issues would impact their mental health, as both of her parents worked physically
arduous jobs that already made them stressed. So, she considered how her decisions would
impact her family’s well-being, even if she did not always tell them directly. That being
said, her family also tapped into their social networks to ensure that Joanna had access to
college students and alums; her mom’s brother-in-law had attended CSU Fullerton, and
her dad’s co-worker had a daughter who went to UC Santa Barbara. Joanna had used her
family’s connections, even if they were not immediate family, to learn more about each
college and make an informed decision. Despite her family’s help, Joanna still found it
hard to communicate all her predicaments with her already stressed family, but she took
them into her college considerations very seriously. Today in particular, it was hard to keep
in the sentiments she was experiencing, especially because a lot of her decision-making
was based around the family.
“Mija, do you want to go to UC Santa Barbara? We can pay for it, me and your
dad, we’ll get another job or whatever it takes to get your school paid for. You can go
wherever you want, we’ll find a way to get you there”, Joanna’s mom shared. The thing
was, Joanna could not even find the words to explain why she did not want to go to UC
Santa Barbara. She knew that financially, it could be viable. She could work, she could get
the CalGrant and the Pell Grant and even could take out loans if needed so that her family
did not have to contribute financially. Yet, in Joanna’s gut, it was still not the right decision
for her. The images of missing out on family dinners, doing homework in a library
instead of the familial kitchen table, and not sharing everything she learned in class
with her parents were extremely present and not worth missing out on for the prestige

Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 1085 16 of 23
of a university. Should she go to UC Santa Barbara, Joanna felt like even that two-hour
drive away from home would create both a literal and emotional distance between her
family and herself, despite her parents’ unconditional support to follow her dreams. Yet,
she questioned her decision.
“Well, she kept telling me that Santa Barbara isn’t that far and that maybe I’m too
attached to family and that I should start being independent. That eventually I’m going
to have to leave home so I might as well do it because a UC is too good to pass up”,
Joanna expressed.
Sympathetically, her mom shared, “Mija, your dad and me don’t care what college
you go to, we just want you to be happy. For us, we’re just happy that you go to college,
whether that’s Cal State LA or Harvard. If you go to college, it makes me feel good that
our sacrifices and journey to this country have been worth it. We don’t care if you go to a
UC or a Cal State, we just want what you feel is best, no matter how much we have to
pay, we’ll figure it out”.
Joanna realized that what would make her happy is not the prestige of UC Santa
Barbara or how competitive it is to get in. Instead, what would make her joyous is being
able to share college experiences with her family, as opposed to moving away from home.
As she articulated, “I want a win for all of us. I think that’s why Cal State Fullerton is better
because then you can see how I’m doing in college. I want you guys to live through me.
I know how much you’ve struggled with your immigration. So I want you to live that
experience of being a college student through me. You’re going through this with me
and I don’t want you to feel lesser than because I have an education. When I graduate,
you can put my graduation regalia on and see that we did it together”.
“I think you have your decision, Joanna”. Her mom smiled, and Joanna realized that
she had been fighting for CSU Fullerton precisely because it was the right decision for her.
Joanna never returned to Ms. Lenteria to tell her her decision, but she successfully declared
her intent to attend CSU Fullerton ahead of her college signing day.
4.3. Scene 3: At Peace in the Midst of the Fire—Coming to Terms with One’s
Decision-Making Process
College signing day was relatively new at Campana High School but one all students
were expected to participate in. In a school-wide assembly, all the seniors would gather
and stand at the podium, declaring what university or college they would attend in the
fall. It was supposed to be a day of celebration. The gymnasium walls were adorned with
the flags of the colleges represented in the graduating class: UCLA, UC Riverside, CSU
Los Angeles, East Los Angeles Community College, and many more institutions. Joanna
gathered with the other students who would attend CSU Fullerton and stood for a photo.
Some of her peers told her she was in the wrong spot, that the UC Santa Barbara flag
was down the aisle. However, she told them she had selected CSU Fullerton, to which
those peers nodded with some perplexion. Following Ms. Lenteria’s meeting, Joanna
had not shared with many peers where she had decided to attend and was quite nervous
about sharing in front of her classmates. However, as she stood with her other peers who
similarly chose CSU Fullerton, she felt more comfortable with her decision. In fact, she met
three other girls who chose CSU Fullerton over their UC options and they bonded over
not feeling heard or supported within their educational settings.
The students were interestingly lined up. They went from community colleges to CSUs
to UCs to some other private colleges. Whose idea that was was unclear to the students, but
nonetheless, students grouped up with their respective institutions and announced their
decisions. Joanna and her group of CSU Fullerton peers were up at around the halfway
point of the ceremony and, one by one, declared their intention to attend CSU Fullerton.
Joanna trembled as she went up to the microphone and proudly stated, “My name is Joanna
Reyes, and I will be attending California State University Fullerton to study Psychology!”
Claps ensued, but so did conversations. Among the crowd were Joanna’s AVID classmates,
who exchanged some whispers about why Joanna had picked CSU Fullerton over UC Santa

Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 1085 17 of 23
Barbara. Some of the comments that Joanna’s friend shared with her were, “Oh, I thought
she should’ve picked [UCSB] because it’s a better school”, “She had good grades, so
I’m surprised she went with a Cal State”, and “I wish I had her set of options, then I
could’ve taken her spot at a UC”.
Although Joanna felt some unease about her peers talking about her decision like that,
she ultimately came to peace with what was important in her own college decision. She
told her friend, “I am the one who has to live with my decision. Nobody else is going to
go to college for me. I am the one who’s going to have to go to class every day and be
okay with the school I chose. Maybe it’s the decision people think was wrong but at the
end of the day, they aren’t living that with me. My family and I will have to bear with
my decision, so I’m gonna choose where I’ll be happy. My family is happy for me, and
their opinion is the only one that matters to me”.
Two years after signing day, she envisions becoming a social worker or a teacher in
order to help her community. Her commute from Los Angeles to Fullerton is “no joke”,
as she puts it, but it has allowed her family to be involved in her college experience, from
visiting campus with her to inviting her college friends to their home over school breaks.
All that has helped Joanna persist through some of the toughest academic experiences of
her life, but the determination to see her parents wear her cap and gown on her graduation
day keeps her motivated. CSU Fullerton ultimately allows her parents to be intimately
involved in the college-going process and, thus, helps Joanna keep pushing through
difficult obstacles.
5. Discussion
The composite narrative demonstrates how students face different opinions and
responses from a variety of actors around them about their college decision-making process.
Evidently, the college decision-making process is seldom an individualistic endeavor.
Rather, input from educators, peers, college access programs, families, and other actors
can shape students’ understanding of their institutional ‘options’. Students’ processes are
mediated through their social interactions, as how they conceptualize what is important to
them and their prioritization of different decision-making factors are socially constructed.
The process of deciding whether and where to go to college is not simply one about going
to the school that is seen as most ‘meritorious’ or as the ‘best academic match’. Rather, the
complexity of students’ decisions and priorities means that we need to look beyond the
purpose of higher education as one that is solely academic. Mainstream narratives about
meritocracy and academic matching within higher education obscure the multifaceted
reasons people go to college, as they emphasize the academic function of the university
rather than what it comes to represent for students. Students carry their meanings for
college into the decision-making process, which helps them concretize what their tangible
considerations are (i.e., the priority of familial cohesion drives Joanna’s decision to pursue
college at an institution that she can commute to). Furthermore, mainstream narratives
underscore the individual student’s decision-making process while ignoring the social and
cultural contexts that guide their thinking [8]. Especially as Latinx students constitute the
fastest-growing racial/ethnic group within higher education, mainstream narratives fail to
represent the new ‘face’ of college-going, which is shown to hold high levels of collectivism
and familial commitment [
18
]. Therefore, upholding meritocracy, academic ‘matching’,
and individualistic perspectives on college decision-making can ostracize our racialized
and socioeconomically marginalized students, creating tension between them and the
higher education system they wish to enter. These mainstream narratives are not solely
tied to media depictions, but as the composite narrative shows, socializing institutions like
college access programs and actors like counselors can further perpetuate these dominant
ideals. The students’ counterstories portray the reality of college decision-making, which is
often messy and complicated yet sometimes empowering. Unlike the deficit perspectives
articulated through mainstream narratives, students’ testimonies about how they navigate

Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 1085 18 of 23
the difficult process with hopes and aspirations for a collective ‘better future’ demonstrate
that our students know what they need and expect from institutions.
One pivotal finding across interviews was the centering of family within college
decision-making. However, students do not frame their families as inhibiting the range of
colleges they can apply to. Rather, as Joanna’s story demonstrates, family is an empowering
source of care that gives students increased confidence about their postsecondary educa-
tional options. Notably, students do not frame their families as pressuring them to attend a
certain school or select a specific major. The families instead carry unconditional support
that empowers students to make the decisions that are best for them. Unlike the mainstream
narratives that invalidate students’ decision-making, families are a source of comfort that
inspires students to take agency and autonomy over their decisions. Family, in a lot of
ways, shapes students’ thinking about the purpose of college and certain priorities like
staying close to home, but they do not signal strict pressure to abide by certain expectations
or regulations. However, for this group, having an accentuated worry for familial dynamics
and relationships, how college finances would affect familial economics, and restriction in
movement due to undocumented parent status are all stressors that students juggle as they
make their college decisions. Oftentimes, these stressors are both motivators for students
to do well in school but also hold considerable weight in college decision-making. Addi-
tionally, in Joanna’s narrative, we see that she does not reveal every issue or consideration
to her family despite their unconditional support. It is important to note that many of the
participants chose this strategy in order to reduce stress and worry among their already
labor-burdened parents. Therefore, we see how familial considerations are classed and
racialized processes that students construct based on their lived experiences. Although
qualitative studies are not representative of every population member, the students in
this study largely counter concerns of family being a source of constraint within college
decision-making and are rather a unit that liberates students from mainstream narrative
expectations. As students decide whether and where to pursue college, holding the family
at the forefront can be a motivating factor to persist within higher education, even when
challenges and obstacles arise, as their families and their pedagogies can inform their sense
of resilience [70].
Furthermore, the students and their families exhibit a great sense of flexibility and
malleability when it comes to their college decision-making. As exhibited through Joanna’s
ability to adapt from her dream school of UCLA to her ultimate institution of CSU Fullerton
and the familial support that followed her, Latinx first-generation students remain moti-
vated to achieve their aspirations because they are flexible in where they can do so. The
ability to adapt to their circumstances demonstrates resilience that will serve them well in
their higher education journeys, as setbacks and critiques did not stop them from fulfilling
their dreams. On the contrary, their determination to prioritize collective well-being in
their college decisions can help them persist during college as they do not necessarily have
to sacrifice one over the other when they embark on the higher education journey. It may
help explain why all of the students have remained in college two years after the study and
have persevered through various types of academic, social, and financial challenges. While
we cannot prove the counterfactual to be true (i.e., if Joanna would have done well had
she attended UC Santa Barbara), we do know that the malleability of achieving their goals
regardless of institutional type demonstrates a great sense of resilience that is undermined
in mainstream narrative about undermatching and institutional selectivity. Additionally,
there is an increased presence of Latinx students at ‘less selective’ institutions, and there-
fore, the cultural affirmation that students receive in settings like regional universities and
community colleges may also increase their retention.
Lastly, the findings suggest that the emphasis on getting academically talented, first-
generation students into selective institutions as a form of ‘equity’ undermines the complex
decision-making process that students go through that extends beyond academics. In
conversations about undermatching and college access, it is common for interventions
to revolve around getting academically qualified marginalized students into selective

Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 1085 19 of 23
institutions, emphasizing that if they are given quality information or granted ‘pathways’
toward these colleges, then the access to opportunity gap can be reduced [
2
]. However,
these types of interventions and strategies undermine other important factors that matter
in college decision-making beyond the academic profile of the school, as well as create a
narrow sense of what ‘success’ within decision-making looks like. By classifying the more
selective institutions students get into as the ‘right’ choice in models of academic matching,
it sets up a researcher-based hierarchy that discounts students’ other priorities in their
college decision-making process [52].
As the student interviews demonstrate, academic profile and school selectivity is
one dimension of consideration, but it is not the only one, nor is it always the most im-
portant. For many Latinx first-generation students, priorities about familial cohesion,
proximity to home, ability to support one’s family members and community, and collective
well-being may supersede the importance of academic ‘matching’ to an institution. Fur-
thermore, even if college access interventions are to provide pathways toward selective
institutions, they will always be limited to a select few, as that is the nature of selective
admissions [
36
]. Therefore, instead of focusing on how we can move a few first-generation
Latinx students into selective institutions, what can be done to support students regardless
of their institutional choice? How can we provide support structures and initiatives so that,
regardless of the school’s selectivity, students will be adequately propelled into college
degree completion? How can we reframe conversations about the ‘overrepresentation’ of
Latinx students within community colleges and less selective institutions into ones that
acknowledge and uphold these institutions as truly ‘Hispanic-serving institutions’ that
enable our Latinx population to pursue higher education [
71
]? That being said, we also
need to acknowledge the structural constraints that currently limit less selective institutions’
ability to afford more retention strategies, such as adviser-to-student ratios and specialized
programs for vulnerable populations (i.e., student parents, full-time working students),
and rethink government funding so that money is reaching the institutions serving the
most first-generation-to-college, low-income students [
72
]. Future work should explore
how changes in government funding for universities can support Latinx first-generation,
low-income students at any institution they elect to attend [
73
]. How can additional fund-
ing toward student retention help the institutions with the highest proportions of Latinx
first-generation, low-income students and what programs can be enacted in order to be
able to do so? Furthermore, work within college access can also further investigate how we
can move beyond an individualistic take on college decision-making into ways we can best
recognize students’ varying commitments and priorities for higher education. Especially
because changes to government funding take a long time, college access programs and
university initiatives can be essential in supporting students in the meantime. For example,
college access programs may further integrate families into their programming and provide
increased information to family units about decision-making, reducing the emotional bur-
den on students to explain all their considerations to their parents. Furthermore, university
programs may consider additional family outreach, such as parent orientations and virtual
discussions designed specifically for the parents of first-generation-to-college students, so
that they are further connected to the school, and the distance between universities and
families is reduced. This can also help with student retention, especially among students
who hold family to be of utmost importance.
As previous scholars and this study underscore, Latinx first-generation, low-income
students often make college decisions based on familial circumstances and, therefore, how
can we move our educational practices to better accommodate collective thinking [
13
,
74
,
75
]?
Working toward supporting the family through the college decision-making process instead
of just the student can reduce the dissonance some students experience from educators and
uphold parents, siblings, and other loved ones as partners in the higher education journey
of students [75].

Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 1085 20 of 23
Funding: This research is funded by Stanford University and the Ford Foundation Predoctoral
Fellowship. This funding was granted to the author directly for her Ph.D. studies.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration
of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Stanford University (protocol code
61768, approved 20 August 2021).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Parental consent for minors was waived in order to ensure that students could participate even if
they did not have families supportive of their college plans.
Data Availability Statement: The original contributions presented in the study are included in the
article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Acknowledgments: The author would like to thank the continued support of her advisers, Anthony
Lising Antonio and Ramon Martinez, who read and provided feedback on early versions of this paper.
She would also like to thank participants of Stanford University’s Qualitative Methods workshop
and Research Seminar in Higher Education for their feedback and engagement with the paper.
Additionally, a huge thank you to the participants of this study whose resistance against normative
notions of success will undeniably transform the higher education institutions they attend. Lastly,
the author would like to thank her family for their unconditional support of her educational journey
and who firsthand demonstrate how working-class, Latinx immigrant families are integral to their
children’s educational journeys, los quiero mucho.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflicts of interest for this paper.
Appendix A
Table A1. Participant identity and background information.
Student Identities and Program Participation
Alejandra Female, Mexican-American, youngest of two
Alice Female, Mexican-American, middle child of four, AVID
Alyssa Female, Mexican-American, AVID
April Female, Mexican-American, youngest of two, AVID
Ashley Female, Mexican-American, single-mother household, only child
Eduardo Male, Mexican-American, Christian, youngest of two, AVID,
Emily Female, Salvadoran-American, youngest of two
Jackie Female, LGBT+, Mexican-American, single-mother household, oldest of three, AVID
Jade Female, Mexican-American, youngest of two, AVID
Jose Male, LGBT+, Mexican-Honduran-American, youngest of four
Nicole Female, Mexican-American, youngest of four
Peter Male, Mexican-American, single-parent household, youngest of four
Rose Female, Mexican-American, only child, AVID
Yori Non-Binary/TransFemme, Mexican-American, LGBT+, single-mother household, AVID
Pseudonyms were chosen by the student to keep their identity confidential. All students identified as first-
generation, low-income students.
References
1.
Bowen, W.G.; Chingos, M.M.; McPherson, M.S. Crossing the Finish Line: Completing College at America’s Public Universities; Princeton
University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2009.
2.
Hoxby, C.; Avery, C. The Missing “One-Offs”: The Hidden Supply of High-Achieving, Low-Income Students. Brook. Pap. Econ.
Act. 2013,2013, 1–65. [CrossRef]
3.
Ovink, S.; Kalogrides, D.; Nanney, M.; Delaney, P. College Match and Undermatch: Assessing Student Preferences, College
Proximity, and Inequality in Post-College Outcomes. Res. High. Educ. 2018,59, 553–590. [CrossRef]
4.
Belasco, A.S.; Trivette, M.J. Aiming Low: Estimating the Scope and Predictors of Postsecondary Undermatch. J. High. Educ. 2015,
86, 233–263. [CrossRef]
5.
Bills, D.B. The Problem of Meritocracy: The Belief in Achievement, Credentials and Justice. In Research Handbook on the Sociology of
Education; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2019; pp. 88–105.
6.
Solorzano, D.; Yosso, T. Critical Race Methodology: Counter-Storytelling as an Analytical Framework for Education Research.
Qual. Inq.-QUAL INQ 2002,8, 23–44. [CrossRef]

Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 1085 21 of 23
7.
Pérez, P.A.; McDonough, P.M. Understanding Latina and Latino College Choice: A Social Capital and Chain Migration Analysis.
J. Hisp. High. Educ. 2008,7, 249–265. [CrossRef]
8.
Perna, L. Studying College Access and Choice: A Proposed Conceptual Model. In Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and
Research; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2006; Volume 21, pp. 99–157. [CrossRef]
9.
Karabel, J. The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton; Reprint Edition; Harper
Paperbacks: Boston, MA, USA, 2006.
10.
Acevedo-Gil, N. College-Conocimiento: Toward an Interdisciplinary College Choice Framework for Latinx Students. Race Ethn.
Educ. 2017,20, 829–850. [CrossRef]
11.
Olivarez, C.P. The Role of Families in Latinx College Choice: New Directions for Community Colleges. New Dir. Community Coll.
2020,2020, 21–34. [CrossRef]
12.
Bryan, J.; Kim, J.; Liu, C. School Counseling College-Going Culture: Counselors’ Influence on Students’ College-Going Decisions.
J. Couns. Dev. 2022,100, 39–55. [CrossRef]
13.
Mariscal, J. The College Choice Process as a Latinx/a/o Family Affair. In Studying Latinx/a/o Students in Higher Education: A
Critical Analysis of Concepts, Theory, and Methodologies; Garcia, N.M., Salinas, C., Jr., Cisneros, J., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY,
USA, 2021; pp. 30–42.
14.
Hossler, D.; Gallagher, K. Studying Student College Choice: A Three-Phase Model and the Implications for Policymakers. Coll.
Univ. 1987,51, 207–221.
15. McDonough, P.M. Buying and Selling Higher Education. J. High. Educ. 1994,65, 427–446. [CrossRef]
16. McDonough, P.M. Choosing Colleges: How Social Class and Schools Structure Opportunity; SUNY Press: Albany, NY, USA, 1997.
17.
Reeves, R. Dream Hoarders: How the American Upper Middle Class Is Leaving Everyone Else in the Dust, Why That Is a Problem, and
What to Do About It; Brookings Institution Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2018.
18.
Martinez, M.A. (Re)Considering the Role “Familismo” Plays in Latina/o High School Students’ College Choices. High Sch. J.
2013,97, 21–40. [CrossRef]
19.
Espino, M.M. The Value of Education and Educación: Nurturing Mexican American Children’s Educational Aspirations to the
Doctorate. J. Lat. Educ. 2016,15, 73–90. [CrossRef]
20.
Yosso, T.J. Why Use Critical Race Eory and Counterstorytelling to Analyze the Chicana/o Educational Pipeline? In Critical Race
Counterstories along the Chicana/Chicano Educational Pipeline; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2005.
21.
Kiyama, J.M.; Rios-Aguilar, C. (Eds.) Funds of Knowledge in Higher Education: Honoring Students’ Cultural Experiences and Resources
as Strengths; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [CrossRef]
22.
Yosso, T.J. Whose Culture Has Capital? A Critical Race Theory Discussion of Community Cultural Wealth. Race Ethn. Educ. 2005,
8, 69–91. [CrossRef]
23.
Swartz, T.T. Family Capital and the Invisible Transfer of Privilege: Intergenerational Support and Social Class in Early Adulthood.
New Dir. Child Adolesc. Dev. 2008,2008, 11–24. [CrossRef]
24.
Kang, C.; García Torres, D. College Undermatching, Bachelor’s Degree Attainment, and Minority Students. J. Divers. High. Educ.
2021,14, 264–277. [CrossRef]
25.
Ovink, S.; Kalogrides, D. No Place like Home? Familism and Latino/a–White Differences in College Pathways. Soc. Sci. Res. 2015,
52, 219–235. [CrossRef]
26.
Tornatzky, L.; Lee, J.; Mejia, O.; Tarant, S. College Choices among Latinos: Issues of Leaving Home. Tomas Rivera Policy Inst. 2003.
27.
Ceja, M. Understanding the Role of Parents and Siblings as Information Sources in the College Choice Process of Chicana Students.
J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 2006,47, 87–104. [CrossRef]
28.
Garcia, N.M.; Mireles-Rios, R. “You Were Going to Go to College”: The Role of Chicano Fathers’ Involvement in Chicana
Daughters’ College Choice. Am. Educ. Res. J. 2020,57, 2059–2088. [CrossRef]
29.
Delgado, V. Decoding the Hidden Curriculum: Latino/a First-Generation College Students’ Influence on Younger Siblings’
Educational Trajectory. J. Lat. Educ. 2020,22, 624–641. [CrossRef]
30.
Marín, E. “He Was Able to Rely on Me”: Negotiating the Sibling Intragenerational Bargain among Latino First-Generation College
Student Families. Sociol. Perspect. 2024,67, 127–149. [CrossRef]
31.
Luqueño, L.P. From Immigrant Legacy to Educational Future: Redefining Latinx Immigrant Familial Engagement in College-
Going Habitus Cultivation. J. Lat. Educ. 2024, 1–16. [CrossRef]
32.
Luqueño, L.P. The Role of Family Histories in Student of Immigrant Origin’s Aspirations and College Decision-Making Process.
In Supporting College Students of Immigrant Origin: New Insights from Research, Policy, and Practice; Silver, B.R., McCarron, G.P., Eds.;
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2024.
33. McNamee, S.J., Jr. The Meritocracy Myth, 2nd ed.; Rowman & Littlefield Publishers: Lanham, MD, USA, 2009.
34.
Carnevale, A.P.; Schmidt, P.; Strohl, J. The Merit Myth: How Our Colleges Favor the Rich and Divide America; The New Press: New
York, NY, USA, 2020.
35.
Markovits, D. The Meritocracy Trap: How America’s Foundational Myth Feeds Inequality, Dismantles the Middle Class, and Devours the
Elite; Illustrated Edition; Penguin Press: New York, NY, USA, 2019.
36.
Stevens, M.L. Creating a Class: College Admissions and the Education of Elites; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2009.
37.
Taylor, B.J.; Cantwell, B. Unequal Higher Education: Wealth, Status, and Student Opportunity; Rutgers University Press: New
Brunswick, NJ, USA, 2019.

Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 1085 22 of 23
38.
Warikoo, N. What Meritocracy Means to Its Winners: Admissions, Race, and Inequality at Elite Universities in The United States
and Britain. Soc. Sci. 2018,7, 131. [CrossRef]
39.
Liu, A. Unraveling the Myth of Meritocracy within the Context of US Higher Education. High. Educ. 2011,62, 383–397. [CrossRef]
40.
Ringel, L.; Werron, T. Where Do Rankings Come From?: A Historical-Sociological Perspective on the History of Modern Rankings; Bielefeld
University Press: Bielefeld, Germany, 2020; pp. 137–170. [CrossRef]
41.
Fowles, J.; Frederickson, H.G.; Koppell, J.G.S. University Rankings: Evidence and a Conceptual Framework. Public Adm. Rev.
2016,76, 790–803. [CrossRef]
42.
Hammarfelt, B.; de Rijcke, S.; Wouters, P. From Eminent Men to Excellent Universities: University Rankings as Calculative
Devices. Minerva 2017,55, 391–411. [CrossRef]
43. Gadd, E. University Rankings Need a Rethink. Nature 2020,587, 523. [CrossRef]
44. Hazelkorn, E. Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education: The Battle for World-Class Excellence; Springer: New York, NY, USA,
2015.
45.
Bowman, N.A.; Bastedo, M.N. Getting on the Front Page: Organizational Reputation, Status Signals, and the Impact of U.S. News
and World Report on Student Decisions. Res. High. Educ. 2009,50, 415–436. [CrossRef]
46.
Morse, R.; Brooks, E. How U.S. News Calculated the 2022 Best Colleges Rankings. US News & World Report. Available online:
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/how-us-news-calculated-the-rankings (accessed on 30 November
2021).
47.
Furquim, F.; Glasener, K.M. A Quest for Equity? Measuring the Effect of QuestBridge on Economic Diversity at Selective
Institutions. Res. High. Educ. 2017,58, 646–671. [CrossRef]
48.
Giancola, J.; Kahlenberg, R.D. True Merit: Ensuring Our Brightest Students Have Access to Our Best Colleges and Universities; Jack
Kent Cooke Foundation: Lansdowne, VA, USA, 2016. Available online: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED569948 (accessed on 24 April
2024).
49.
Jack, A.A. The Privileged Poor: How Elite Colleges Are Failing Disadvantaged Students; Harvard University Press: Harvard, MA, USA,
2019.
50.
Gable, R. The Hidden Curriculum: First Generation Students at Legacy Universities; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA,
2021.
51.
Rodriguez, A. The Road to Undermatch: Understanding the Differences between White and Latino Student Predictors of
Undermatch. J. LatinoLatin Am. Stud. 2015,7, 149–168. [CrossRef]
52.
Bastedo, M.N.; Flaster, A. Conceptual and Methodological Problems in Research on College Undermatch. Educ. Res. 2014,43,
93–99. [CrossRef]
53.
Covarrubias, A.; Nava, P.E.; Lara, A.; Burciaga, R.; Vélez, V.N.; Solorzano, D.G. Critical Race Quantitative Intersections:
A Testimonio Analysis. Race Ethn. Educ. 2018,21, 253–273. [CrossRef]
54.
McGuire, P. How Concerns About ‘Undermatching’ Perpetuate Higher Ed’s Caste System. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Avail-
able online: https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-concerns-about-undermatching-perpetuate-higher-eds-caste-system/
(accessed on 17 February 2024).
55.
Cuellar, M.G.; Bencomo Garcia, A.; Saichaie, K. Reaffirming the Public Purposes of Higher Education: First-Generation and
Continuing Generation Students’ Perspectives. J. High. Educ. 2022,93, 273–296. [CrossRef]
56. Charmaz, K. The Power of Constructivist Grounded Theory for Critical Inquiry. Qual. Inq. 2017,23, 34–45. [CrossRef]
57. Yosso, T. Critical Race Counterstories along the Chicana/Chicano Educational Pipeline, 1st ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2006.
58.
Hoxby, C.M.; Turner, S. What High-Achieving Low-Income Students Know about College. Am. Econ. Rev. 2015,105, 514–517.
[CrossRef]
59. Tiboris, M. What’s Wrong With Undermatching? J. Philos. Educ. 2014,48, 646–664. [CrossRef]
60.
Cuevas, S. Apoyo Sacrificial, Sacrificial Support: How Undocumented Latinx Parents Get Their Children to College; Teachers College
Press: New York, NY, USA, 2021.
61.
Dwyer, S.C.; Buckle, J.L. The Space Between: On Being an Insider-Outsider in Qualitative Research. Int. J. Qual. Methods 2009,8,
54–63. [CrossRef]
62.
Delgado Bernal, D. Using a Chicana Feminist Epistemology in Educational Research. Harv. Educ. Rev. 1998,68, 555–583.
[CrossRef]
63. Saldana, J. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers; SAGE: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 2012.
64.
Franzosi, R. Narrative Analysis—Or Why (and How) Sociologists Should Be Interested In Narrative. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1998,24,
517–554. [CrossRef]
65.
Miles, M.B.; Huberman, A.M.; Saldaña, J. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook, 4th ed.; SAGE Publications, Inc: Los
Angeles, CA, USA; London, UK; New Delhi, India; Singapore; Washington, DC, USA; Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 2019.
66.
Wertz, M.S.; Nosek, M.; McNiesh, S.; Marlow, E. The Composite First Person Narrative: Texture, Structure, and Meaning in
Writing Phenomenological Descriptions. Int. J. Qual. Stud. Health Well-Being 2011,6, 5882. [CrossRef]
67. Willis, R. The Use of Composite Narratives to Present Interview Findings. Qual. Res. 2019,19, 471–480. [CrossRef]
68. Arjomand, N.A. Empirical Fiction: Composite Character Narratives in Analytical Sociology. Am. Sociol. 2022. [CrossRef]
69.
Cann, C.N.; McCloskey, E. The Poverty Pimpin’ Project: How Whiteness Profits from Black and Brown Bodies in Community
Service Programs. Race Ethn. Educ. 2017,20, 72–86. [CrossRef]

Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 1085 23 of 23
70.
Rocha, J. Pedagogies of Sacrifices: The Use of Narratives as Socialization in Families and a Human Resource for Resilience. Race
Ethn. Educ. 2021,24, 186–209. [CrossRef]
71.
Garcia, G.A. Becoming Hispanic-Serving Institutions: Opportunities for Colleges and Universities; Johns Hopkins University Press:
Baltimore, MD, USA, 2019.
72.
Silver, B.R. Degrees of Risk: Navigating Insecurity and Inequality in Public Higher Education; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL,
USA, 2024.
73.
Johnson, H. Making College Possible for Low-Income Students: Grant and Scholarship Aid in California. Public Policy Inst. Calif.
2014.
74.
Cuevas, S. From Spectators to Partners: The Role of Self-Efficacy in Latina/o Immigrant Parents’ Engagement in Students’
Post-Secondary Planning. J. Lat. Educ. 2020,22, 271–287. [CrossRef]
75.
Kiyama, J.M.; Harper, C.E. Beyond Hovering: A Conceptual Argument for an Inclusive Model of Family Engagement in Higher
Education. Rev. High. Educ. 2018,41, 365–385. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.