A diversity category that describes half your student body isn't a diversity category. It's a proxy — and a useful one for universities seeking a post-SFFA workaround.
On one level, I see this as another example of using convoluted language to identify some people as members of designated victim groups. A recent alumni magazine highlighted a student who was "indigenous." She had grown up in New Jersey, and had no American Indian ancestry. Her parents were Amazigh (I had to look that one up). But she had been taught to see herself (or maybe the University found it convenient to see her) as a victim by virtue of her parents' status in a far-away land.
On another level, this seems like another example of universities working very hard to hide their actual practices because their actual practices are ludicrous and would be unpopular if they were known. And these practices may be actively harmful for their intended beneficiaries. I think it's sad, and ultimately harmful to the schools' credibility.
I agree that "first generation" is a wooly category that encompasses all sorts of things, and could indeed be used as a cover for illegal racial preferences. But that might be a reason for tightening the definition and using it more rigorously, not abandoning it. Because there is - as has been well documented - a problem in the US of elite reproduction: people with successful parents are able to join the elite themselves, and fit in more comfortably once they are there. Finding GENUINE first-generation students (not the children of Prince William!) and helping support them would be a good step to correcting that.
One question I would have is what percentage of true "first generation" students are at "elite" universities: on the site you link to, that gives you the "38-54% of undergraduates are first generation" statistic, it also notes that 43% of those are at two-year institutions, that 12% are at private for-profit institutions. I wonder what the percentage of first-generation students is at Harvard, for example. (Harvard claims it's 20% or so - but of course you can't trust that statistic, for the reason you explain!)
The university has a data system we use regularly - course enrollment, registration, transcripts, advising - and of course the support part of it - for university level attendance record keeping and grades - and opportunity to indicate students are having issues. When you look at the list of students in a class, under their name (and pronouns of course - in the same field as the name so its all run on - because you know...pronouns) - are the listing of victimhood oppressed status - and First Generation is near the start of that. Of course, Commuter is also in there. There are emails from various admin offices about the FG students, voicing the usual coddling.
When I entered this field back in 2010, the 'first generation" thing was all the rage. I held my first job at an NGO that specialized in getting first gen students into college. But to be honest, it feels like a fad that is fading away. I haven't heard the term used in a widespread way in years.
Both funny and grim. It sounds like they had a script in their heads about who first-gen students are allowed to look like and you weren't in it. So you got quietly de-shirted ... There are days these people feel like they're broadcasting from another planet.
On one level, I see this as another example of using convoluted language to identify some people as members of designated victim groups. A recent alumni magazine highlighted a student who was "indigenous." She had grown up in New Jersey, and had no American Indian ancestry. Her parents were Amazigh (I had to look that one up). But she had been taught to see herself (or maybe the University found it convenient to see her) as a victim by virtue of her parents' status in a far-away land.
On another level, this seems like another example of universities working very hard to hide their actual practices because their actual practices are ludicrous and would be unpopular if they were known. And these practices may be actively harmful for their intended beneficiaries. I think it's sad, and ultimately harmful to the schools' credibility.
I agree that "first generation" is a wooly category that encompasses all sorts of things, and could indeed be used as a cover for illegal racial preferences. But that might be a reason for tightening the definition and using it more rigorously, not abandoning it. Because there is - as has been well documented - a problem in the US of elite reproduction: people with successful parents are able to join the elite themselves, and fit in more comfortably once they are there. Finding GENUINE first-generation students (not the children of Prince William!) and helping support them would be a good step to correcting that.
One question I would have is what percentage of true "first generation" students are at "elite" universities: on the site you link to, that gives you the "38-54% of undergraduates are first generation" statistic, it also notes that 43% of those are at two-year institutions, that 12% are at private for-profit institutions. I wonder what the percentage of first-generation students is at Harvard, for example. (Harvard claims it's 20% or so - but of course you can't trust that statistic, for the reason you explain!)
The university has a data system we use regularly - course enrollment, registration, transcripts, advising - and of course the support part of it - for university level attendance record keeping and grades - and opportunity to indicate students are having issues. When you look at the list of students in a class, under their name (and pronouns of course - in the same field as the name so its all run on - because you know...pronouns) - are the listing of victimhood oppressed status - and First Generation is near the start of that. Of course, Commuter is also in there. There are emails from various admin offices about the FG students, voicing the usual coddling.
When I entered this field back in 2010, the 'first generation" thing was all the rage. I held my first job at an NGO that specialized in getting first gen students into college. But to be honest, it feels like a fad that is fading away. I haven't heard the term used in a widespread way in years.
My university encourages first-gen faculty to put a cutesy “I’m was a first- gen student” line in email signatures.
WHAT?! That's crazy! Then again many of those places tell people to put their pronouns, so...
Both funny and grim. It sounds like they had a script in their heads about who first-gen students are allowed to look like and you weren't in it. So you got quietly de-shirted ... There are days these people feel like they're broadcasting from another planet.