In their book Paying for the party, Armstrong and Hamilton discusses how universities take class differences and class projects of distinct women to define what will be their college experience. In their book, Armstrong and Hamilton defines class projects as individual and class characteristics that defines a person’s agenda and orientation to school. Hence, people with similar class projects not only shared the same financial, cultural and social capital, but also the same expectations toward school. As a result, Armstrong and Hamilton claims that students with similar class projects end up becoming a collective constituency and a representative group for the university, whom in turn must take their interests to form a college pathway for
…show more content…
Consequently, when I first arrive to this school, I faced many of the financial worries that most strivers experience. For instance, I did not only have to take loans at Cal to help me with my living expenses, but I also had to do work study to balance my debt. In addition, like many strivers, I also lacked the cultural capital from prominent students. Therefore, I had to take special and instructional courses to help me gain the same cultural knowledge as my peers. For example, before taking Math 1a at Cal, which is normally what students take in their first semester, I had to take instead pre-calculus to help me adjust with the material. Moreover, since my school was also low-income and from a homogenous region, I had few social ties and peers coming to Cal. Therefore, like most strivers, I had trouble making social connections and encountering the diverse student body at Cal. That said, it was difficult for me to expressed my thoughts or shared sentiments to a different group without making an inappropriate comment. Nonetheless, I identify myself as a stayer as opposed to a leaver in the block mobility pathway. According to Armstrong and Hamilton, the stayers were able to move and stay in their college routes because they had credentials, family resources or were in excel creaming programs that help navigate through their college experience. Thus, similarly to the stayers, my ability to continue at Cal is mainly because I am in an Educational Opportunity Program that supports me both academically, financially and socially at
Consequently, when I first arrive to this school, I faced many of the financial worries that most strivers experience. For instance, I did not only have to take loans at Cal to help me with my living expenses, but I also had to do work study to balance my debt. In addition, like many strivers, I also lacked the cultural capital from prominent students. Therefore, I had to take special and instructional courses to help me gain the same cultural knowledge as my peers. For example, before taking Math 1a at Cal, which is normally what students take in their first semester, I had to take instead pre-calculus to help me adjust with the material. Moreover, since my school was also low-income and from a homogenous region, I had few social ties and peers coming to Cal. Therefore, like most strivers, I had trouble making social connections and encountering the diverse student body at Cal. That said, it was difficult for me to expressed my thoughts or shared sentiments to a different group without making an inappropriate comment. Nonetheless, I identify myself as a stayer as opposed to a leaver in the block mobility pathway. According to Armstrong and Hamilton, the stayers were able to move and stay in their college routes because they had credentials, family resources or were in excel creaming programs that help navigate through their college experience. Thus, similarly to the stayers, my ability to continue at Cal is mainly because I am in an Educational Opportunity Program that supports me both academically, financially and socially at