Article

Journal of College Student Retention:

College and Career Research, Theory & Practice

0(0) 1–23
! The Author(s) 2016
Readiness of Southeast Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Asian American DOI: 10.1177/1521025116678852
journals.sagepub.com/home/csr
College Students in
New England

Phitsamay S. Uy1, Sue J. Kim2, and

Chrisna Khuon3

Abstract
This study discusses the college and career readiness among full-time Southeast
Asian American college students in a 4-year public university in New England.
Our study consisted of surveys (n ¼ 58) and focus groups (n ¼ 35), of second-
generation (born in the United States) or 1.5-generation (immigrated as a youth)
college students. While our participants were fairly strong academically, they still
struggled to navigate college and many did not feel prepared for careers. We found
some variability by majors in the correlation of academic major and career prepared-
ness, and our findings also suggest that Southeast Asian American students shared a
number of concerns, such as lack of finances, inconsistent academic advising, and
need for more career preparation. Nevertheless, across this heterogeneity, students
agreed that peer mentors and effective faculty mentors are invaluable resources and
that more such mentors and programs are needed.

Keywords
Southeast Asian American, first-generation college students, college and career
readiness

1
Graduate School of Education, University of Massachusetts Lowell, MA, USA
2
English Department, University of Massachusetts Lowell, MA, USA
3
Center for Asian American Studies, University of Massachusetts Lowell, MA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Phitsamay S. Uy, Graduate School of Education, University of Massachusetts Lowell, 61 Wilder Street,
524 O’Leary Library, Lowell, MA 01854, USA.
Email: Phitsamay_uy@uml.edu
2 Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 0(0)

When the 2012 Programme for International Student Assessment results came
out, the United States ranked 27th in math, 20th in science, and 17th in reading
among the 34 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(2012) countries. This lack of significant change from the 2009 test results sub-
sequently reignited President Obama’s administration’s commitment to priori-
tize college and career readiness on their educational agenda. Scholars who have
studied college readiness are seeing a ‘‘systemic shift to preparing all students for
formal learning opportunities beyond high school’’ (Baber, Castro, & Bragg,
2010, p. 1). David Conley (2010) notes that as states move toward the adoption
of college and career readiness standards, it is vital to better define what is meant
by college readiness. In 2003, the Association of American Universities created
the first set of college readiness standards that outlined what it takes for students
to be ready to succeed in entry-level courses at university (Conley, 2003). The
American Diploma Project followed suit and engaged university faculty, econo-
mists, and members of the business communities to set the standards for what it
means to be college ready (Achieve, Education Trust, & Thomas B. Fordham
Foundation, 2004). Conley defines college readiness as the level of preparation a
student needs to succeed without remediation in credit-bearing coursework at
the postsecondary level (Conley & McGaughy, 2012). Conley and McGaughy
(2012) at the Educational Policy Improvement Center have found four major
components that students need for college and careers: key cognitive strategies,
key content knowledge, key transition knowledge and skills, and key learning
skills and techniques.
Similarly, Mueller and Gozali-Lee (2013) define college and career prepared-
ness as follows:

1. Academic preparedness: Having the academic knowledge and skills to do

postsecondary-level coursework at 2-year or 4-year colleges, or other post-
secondary institutions, without the need for remediation.
2. Expected attitudes and behaviors or ‘‘soft skills’’: Having the beliefs, attitudes,
and values, and accompanying behaviors to succeed in postsecondary educa-
tion and the workplace (e.g., motivation, perseverance or tenacity, resilience,
teamwork, self-efficacy, goal-setting, work ethic, and self-regulation skills).
3. College and career knowledge: Having the knowledge and support to success-
fully plan for and enroll in postsecondary institutions (college entrance
exams, college applications, financial aid applications, etc.) and pursue car-
eers (career awareness, exploration, etc.). (p. 29)

First-Generation College Students

For first-generation college students, children from immigrant families, and for
families of low-socioeconomic status, it is not only college readiness but once
Uy et al. 3

they get into college, they face retention challenges. Researchers have found
distinct disadvantages for retention and graduation for first-generation college
students. Compared with other students, first-generation college students are
academically less prepared, often having completed fewer advanced-level
courses; have a more difficult time adapting to the stress of college; have different
conceptions of the college experience, seeing it primarily as a means of advan-
cing socioeconomically; and have lower levels of self-esteem, social acceptance,
creativity, and humor (Atherton, 2014; McGregor, Mayleben, Buzznaga, Davis,
& Becker, 1991; Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak, & Terenzini, 2004; Reid & Moore,
2008). Choy (2001) also found that ‘‘students who are nonwhite or from low-
income families tend to be disproportionately represented among those whose
parents have low education’’ (p. xxxix).
For Asian Americans, the prevailing model minority myth asserts that all
Asian Americans are succeeding academically and financially (Ngo & Lee,
2007). This myth, however, masks issues within the overall Asian America popu-
lation as well as within Southeast Asian American (SEAA) populations specif-
ically. Chaudhari, Chan, and Ha (2013) found that Asian American Pacific
Islander (AAPI) college students are more likely to be unaware of campus sup-
port services, to have difficulty connecting to campus communities, and to have
‘‘financial, person, or family obligations while in college, and feel unable to turn
to family for effective support and guidance’’ (p. 11).

Complexities of SEAA Students

Moreover, various studies have shown that the ‘‘educational challenges of
Southeast Asian Americans have been overshadowed by the model minority
stereotype’’ (Her, 2014, p. 35); in other words, the model minority myth actually
obscures the academic struggles of SEAAs (Hune, 2002; Museus, 2013; Ngo &
Lee, 2007; Tang, Kim, & Haviland, 2013). SEAA communities have the
lowest educational attainment among Asian Americans. In addition to trailing
behind the overall Asian and U.S. population in bachelor degree attainment
(Niedzwiecki & Duong, 2004; Ngo & Lee, 2007; Southeast Asia Resource
Action Center [SEARAC], 2011), well over half of the Southeast Asian popula-
tion—51% of Vietnamese, 63% of Hmong, 65% of Cambodian and
Laotian—above 25 years of age has not attended college (Museus, 2013;
National Commission on Asian American and Pacific Islander Research in
Education [CARE], 2011; Ngo & Lee, 2007). Of those who are attending college,
a disproportionate number are enrolled at 2-year community colleges and earning
an associate’s degree as their highest level of educational attainment (CARE,
2011; Roderick, Nagaoka, & Coca, 2009). The college persistence and graduation
rates for SEAA students remain far below the national average (U.S. Census,
2011). Approximately 49% of Asian Americans earned a bachelor’s degree or
higher, exceeding the national rate of 28.2%, but the Cambodian (16.0%),
4 Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 0(0)

Hmong (14.8%), Laotian (13.2%), and Vietnamese (25.5%) populations

earned significantly lower rates of postsecondary degrees (U.S. Census, 2011).
A number of factors impact academic performance among SEAAs,
including socioeconomic status, English proficiency, migration history, parents’
educational achievement level, family support and guidance, and institutional
climate (Chaudhari et al., 2013; Her, 2014). Due to their migration histories,
many SEAAs experience socioeconomic as well as educational disparities, with
many SEAA students attending underresourced educational institutions.
According to the U.S. Census, SEAAs reported annual earnings well below
the national average of $28,452: Vietnamese ($26,352), Laotian ($22,111),
Cambodian ($20,737), and Hmong ($19,053; Museus, 2013; U.S. Census, 2011).
The particular history of SEA migration to the United States shapes the
experiences of many SEAAs in college. Unlike many other Asian immigrants,
Southeast Asians were refugees, involuntary migrants as a result of war and
genocide (Museus, 2013; Tang et al., 2013). As Sakamoto and Woo (2007) write,

SEAAs’ lower attainments are usually believed to be associated with the historical
circumstances of their initial migration streams to the United States. Cambodians,
Hmong, Laotians, and Vietnamese are among the most recent of Asian American
groups whose initial arrival in the United States occurred mainly as refugees asso-
ciated with the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. (p. 45)

SEAAs typically arrived in the United States as refugees under duress with essen-
tially no economic assets or well-devised plans for the future. Many of the first
arrivals had no prior family connections . . . Refugees tend to have lower socio-
economic statuses than immigrants who are admitted for their labor market
skills. (p. 46)

Due to these historical circumstances of migration, many SEAAs live in areas of

poverty, with underresourced educational institutions.
Moreover, even within SEAA communities, there is great diversity of migra-
tion and postmigration experiences. For example, Vietnamese refugees arrived
in two waves (1975 and earlier and post-1975), with the earlier wave having
higher levels of income and education (Museus, 2013; Sakamoto & Woo,
2007). Other Southeast Asian refugees generally corresponded to the time
period, income, and education levels of the Vietnamese second wave, but
again, there exists heterogeneity within SEAA communities. Museus (2013)
reminds us:

[N]ot all SEAAs enrolling in higher education today are refugees. In fact, given that
a substantial proportion of Southeast Asian refugees began migrating to the United
States over 30 years ago, many current SEAA college students were born or grew
up in the States. Therefore, the SEAA college student population is characterized
Uy et al. 5

by generational diversity and includes students who entered the United States as
adult refugees (i.e., 1st generation refugees), migrated to the United States during
or prior to their early teens as refugees (i.e., 1.5 generation refugees), or are children
of refugees (i.e., 2nd generation refugees). It is also important to note that the
SEAA population is characterized by diverse homelands, cultural backgrounds
and traditions, and languages. (p. 711)

Yet many SEA parents who are refugees do not have much knowledge about
U.S. colleges and have many misconceptions, and very few parents understood
the college application process (Wright & Boun, 2011, p. 48). Scholars have
found that while Asian American students value their parents’ opinions, the
students have to rely more on teachers, guidance counselors, youth service
organizations, and friends in preparing for, applying to, and getting admitted
to college (Poon & Byrd, 2013; Tang et al., 2013; Wright & Boun, 2011). Poon
and Byrd (2013) also found disparities by gender: Women were more likely to
attribute important roles to their parents than men.
Once students enter college, challenges that impact retention include family
and work commitments, financial costs, balancing work or life loads, academic
struggles, and a lack of support and advising (Wright & Boun, 2011, pp. 46–47).
In particular, many second-generation (born and raised in the United States) or
1.5-generation (immigrated to the United States when a child or adolescent)
SEAAs are first-generation college students. In fact, first-generation SEAA col-
lege students may have to find themselves having to choose between school and
family obligations. As Chaudhari et al. (2013) observe, ‘‘many AAPI students
must maintain their role as caretakers, translators, breadwinners, and ‘cultural
brokers’ for their families and communities’’ (p. 9). Students navigated college
by drawing on various resources, including family, aspiration, ethnic or cross-
cultural student organizations, and peers (Tang et al., 2013). Chhuon and
Hudley (2008) also found that student ethnic and cultural groups were key to
student academic success in college, and peers were as critical sources of support
during college as they were for the application process (Tang et al., 2013, p. 13).
Thus, scholars have identified a need for more research disaggregated by
ethnicity, gender, social class, immigration status, generation status, type of
institution (public vs. private; 4-year vs. 2-year), and other factors (Chaudhari
et al., 2013; Her, 2014; Maramba, 2011; Wright & Boun, 2011). In its 2013
report, the Asia and Pacific Islander American Scholarship Fund found that
research ‘‘specifically on low-income and first-generation AAPI students are
sparse and this gap in research needs to be addressed to better support them
in the context of higher education’’ (Chaudhari et al., 2013, p. 9). Ngo and Lee
(2007) concur that ‘‘there is an obvious dearth of research on the education of
Cambodian and Lao students’’ (p. 440). Moreover, Museus (2013) argues that
more information is particularly needed about second-generation SEAA college
students, as
6 Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 0(0)

this population comprises an increasing proportion of SEAAs in college, and the

small body of literature that does exist on second-generation SEAA students sug-
gests that this segment experiences increased struggles due to factors such as inter-
generational conflict and a loss of traditional cultural values that emphasize
education. (p. 716)

Our study seeks to provide more data on this student population.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this research study was to examine the college and career pre-
paredness and in-college experiences of SEAA students at one New England
4-year public university. The questions guiding our investigation were as follows:
(a) How prepared do SEAA students feel for college? And what are the factors
that, in hindsight, were effective in helping to prepare them? (b) What resources
do SEAA students draw on to help them navigate college and prepare for
careers? (c) How well supported do SEAA students feel in their colleges? (d)
What are SEAA students’ career aspirations? And (e) How prepared do SEAA
students feel for careers? We were interested in learning about the broader spec-
trum of the environmental, familial, cultural, and social factors that may influ-
ence their college experience.
The significant contribution of this study to the field is twofold. First, this study
is the first structured examination of college and career readiness and retention of
SEAA college students in New England. Much of the sparse literature on SEAA
college students are situated on the West Coast or Midwest where there are larger
populations of SEAs (Chhuon & Hadley, 2008; Museus, 2013; Ngo, 2006). Second,
it is one of the few multifaceted investigations of second-generation SEAA college
students. This study highlights the voices of SEAA students in the field of
higher education. Our claims are based on what SEAA students argue are effective
strategies in preparing them for and helping them to navigate college.

Conceptual Framework
This research used Conley’s (2010) college and career readiness framework,
Pierre Bourdieu’s cultural capital theory, and James Coleman’s social capital
theory to explore SEAA students’ college experience. Conley’s framework con-
sists of four interactional components that students must possess in order to
successfully complete credit-bearing coursework: key cognitive strategies, key
content, academic behaviors, and contextual skills and awareness. Besides con-
tent knowledge in core academic subjects, Conley argues that students must
possess key cognitive abilities and behavioral attributes to be able to think crit-
ically, solve problems, and navigate large systems the collegiate landscape.
Uy et al. 7

Scholars who have investigated first-generation students and traditional stu-

dents apply social reproduction theory to understand first-generation college
students’ preparedness and persistence. Building on the works of Bourdieu
(1986) and Coleman (1988), scholars have found differences in cultural and
social capital between first-generation students and traditional students.
Bourdieu maintains that the cultural experiences in the home facilitate children’s
adjustment to school and academic achievement, thereby transforming cultural
resources into what he calls cultural capital (Lareau, 1987). Examples of cultural
capital are familiarity with and access to linguistic structures, school-related
information, social networks, and educational credentials of dominant groups
(Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977; Paulsen & St. John, 2002). According to Coleman
(1988), social capital is developed when people form a relationship or network
with members of the dyad or network exchanging resources with one another.
Social capital may become manifest in many forms, including informational
channels and social norms. Members of the same or different ethnic groups
may have access to different resources (Louie, 2004). First-generation students
seek help outside the home because of the limited knowledge and preparedness
that students receive from their parents and families.
Without social or cultural capital, Cushman (2005) argues that first-generation
students experience frustration and isolation as well as overall greater difficulty
transitioning to college. In addition to all the anxieties, dislocations, and difficul-
ties of any college student, first-generation students often confront substantial
cultural as well as social and academic transitions (Pascarella et al., 2004).
Our study examined how first- and second-generation SEAA students describe
their understanding of college and career readiness, as well as their experiences in
college.

Method
We conducted surveys (n ¼ 58) and focus groups (n ¼ 35) on college and career
readiness with current SEAA college students at a public university in New
England that we will call State University Riverside, located in the city of
Riverside.1 State University Riverside is a public, 4-year university where
many of the students are from the local region and state, thus maintaining
their family and community ties.
Over the past 10 years, the Southeast Asian population in the state grew
almost threefold. Riverside is home to the second-largest population of
Cambodian Americans in the United States. Although the 2010 U.S. Census
Bureau estimated that 13,000 residents are of Cambodian descent, Cambodian
American community leaders believe that this is an underestimate, and that in
fact, approximately 20,000 to 35,000 Cambodian Americans live in the city.
Many undocumented community members do not report their numbers due
8 Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 0(0)

to fears of deportation. For this same reason, we estimate the total SEAA popu-
lation, including a significant Laotian and Vietnamese population, in the city to
be near 50,000.

Participant Selection
Survey participants. Our survey results provide some nuanced information about
the college experiences of SEAA college students. Fifty-eight students responded
to the survey, of whom 26 were women and 32 were men (see Table 1).
Respondents included 11 freshmen, 19 sophomores, 20 juniors, 4 seniors, and
4 ‘‘other’’ (i.e., transfer students, ‘‘super seniors’’).
Survey demographic data made it clear that our respondents were primarily
second-generation SEAAs. Forty-eight respondents (83%) were born in the
United States, while 10 were born outside the United States; thus, our respond-
ents were primarily second generation (born in the United States), and several of
those born outside the United States had immigrated when they were very young
or adolescents, that is, 1.5 generation. Furthermore, 55 students (95%) indicated
that English was spoken at home. Khmer was spoken in 26 (56%) homes, and
Vietnamese was spoken in 19 (33%) of homes. Other languages included Lao,
Spanish, and Cantonese. Survey respondents included 11 first-year students, 19
sophomores, 20 juniors, 4 seniors, and 4 ‘‘other’’ (transfer students, ‘‘super
seniors’’).

Focus group participants. The 35 focus group participants included 12 Cambodian,

1 Laotian, 14 Vietnamese, and 8 multiethnics (e.g., Cambodian or Chinese,

Table 1. Characteristics of SEAA Survey Participants.

Survey
Categories respondents (n ¼ 58)

Gender
Female 26
Male 32
Generational status
1.5 generation 10
Second generation 48
Ethnicities
Lao 2
Khmer or Cambodian 26
Vietnamese 19
Multiethnic 11
Uy et al. 9

Cambodian or Vietnamese or Thai, Vietnamese or Scottish, and Vietnamese or

Chinese). The sample included an equal distribution of males and females with
the majority of them (26) being second-generation students, and 9 were 1.5
generation.

Data Collection
The research team recruited SEAA participants using three methods: (a) flyers
posted around campus, (b) attending SEAA student club meetings, and (c) snow-
ball sampling. Each participant received a gift card for completing a survey and an
additional gift card for participating in the focus group discussion. The focus
group discussion lasted approximately 45 to 75 minutes in duration. All focus
group discussions were audiotaped and professionally transcribed.
The surveys consisted of predominantly close-ended questions about prior
learning experiences and outcomes. The first cluster of survey questions focused
on students’ experiences in high school with teachers, while the second cluster
focused on academic behaviors and contextual awareness and behaviors (e.g.,
time management and study skills). The third cluster focused on the student’s
sense of readiness for college in terms of academic preparation and key cognitive
skills (critical thinking problem solving, etc.). Further questions inquired into
students’ experiences with mentors—both for college and for careers—and the
extent to which students felt college was preparing them for careers, the next step
for most students. The survey also collected demographic and academic data
from students.

Data Analysis
Surveys were analyzed by category—learning outcomes, college experiences, and
college and career planning—and demographic information—gender, race or
ethnicity, nationality, primary language, grade level, and grade point average.
We assessed survey data to find general patterns of responses to help us under-
stand the types of experiences and attitudes that students hold.
The focus groups consisted primarily of open-ended questions about the stu-
dents’ experiences in high school and college, particularly advising and mentoring.
Sample questions included the following: (a) How well do you think your teachers
and schools prepared you for college and for careers? (b) Please describe your
relationship with your advisors; and (c) What advice would you give new SEAA
freshmen about attending college? Once the focus group transcription was com-
pleted, they were organized and coded using the NVivo qualitative analysis soft-
ware. First, we used open coding to identify thematic categories around college
readiness, and then axial coding was used to further investigate issues that arose
during the open-coding process (Strauss & Corbin, 1994). We conducted cross-
section analysis by grade level, gender, and majors declared.
10 Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 0(0)

Researcher Subjectivity, Reflexivity, and Trustworthiness

While some researchers posit that there is a need to underplay the impact of
researcher subjectivity (Strauss & Corbin, 1994), we support Charmaz’s (2005) argu-
ment about the importance of researcher reflexivity and the need to acknowledge
personal biases and assumptions that influence how the researcher looks at, makes
decisions about, and interprets data. As an Asian American research team, we share
many traits with the SEAA students in the study, such as similar phenotype, linguis-
tic challenges, and cultural and religious background (i.e., two of the researchers are
Buddhist). We firmly believe that our unique position as Asian American scholars—
one 1.5 Lao refugee, one second-generation Korean American, and one Cambodian
American student—facilitated our entry and helped us build trust and rapport with
the SEAA students. We are cognizant of our role as insider–outsider. We acknow-
ledge that as individuals who have knowledge about college, our experiences influ-
ence our biases; these biases include the belief that more attention needs to focus on
first-generation SEAA college students. Likewise, we believe that institutions of
higher education must provide systemic support to faculty and staff in order for
them to properly advise and mentor SEAA students.
The credibility of our analysis relies on the congruence of our findings with
other marginalized students’ experiences in different school contexts (Merriam,
1998). We implemented several strategies to maximize trustworthiness of the
findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1986). First, we triangulated multiple data sources
to analyze and verify emergent themes of the surveys, focus group transcription,
code reports, and research team field notes. Second, we conducted member
checks to ascertain our analysis with the focus group participants’ perceptions.
Third, we sought discrepant data throughout the analysis phase to determine
alternative hypotheses and consider other theoretical suppositions.

Findings
While the survey and focus group data uncovered many noteworthy findings,
this manuscript will only focus on two sets of themes that emerged from the
analysis. The first set of themes arose from the surveys and highlights the stu-
dents’ perception of their college readiness, challenges they faced, and resources
they accessed to help them prepare for college. The second set of themes that
emerged from the 35 SEAA focus group participants presented differences in the
in-college experience based on declared majors, the support they were receiving
from advisors, and people they connected with on campus.

Prepared for Academics

The first theme that emerged from the survey data is that the majority of the
SEAA college students in this sample reported feeling generally academically
prepared for college.
Uy et al. 11

Conley (2010) defines college readiness as the level of preparation a student

needs to succeed without remediation in credit-bearing coursework at the post-
secondary level. In our study, 51 SEAA students (88%) had a high school grade
point average of B or higher, and 46 (79%) had taken honors and AP classes.
In fact, 31 students (53%) indicated that they had improved their study skills
and learned helpful study strategies while in high school, whereas 43 (74%)
understood their academic strengths and areas for improvement. While in
high school, 16 SEAA students (28%) had taken college courses in the dual-
enrollment program with their high school and nearby college. Studies from the
complete college America program, moreover, found that 20% of 4-year college
students needed to complete at least one remedial classes (Shaw, 2014). In con-
trast, only 9% of the SEAA students in our study completed a remediation
course (four SEAA students required supplemental writing instruction, and
one required supplemental instruction in math). From their survey response,
these students articulated a general satisfaction with the education their received
in high school. This means that our sample of 58 SEAA felt confident that they
had the academic knowledge and skills to do postsecondary coursework and
considered themselves among the high-achieving, college-ready students of their
peer set.

Expected Attitudes and Behaviors

Not only were the SEAA students academically prepared, but they also reported
having the expected attitudes and behaviors to succeed in postsecondary educa-
tion. Many students talked in detail about their goal-setting skills. Fifty-four
SEAA students (93%) had planned to attend a 4-year college or university after
graduating high school, despite the fact that few of their family members
attended college or university. Sam, a Vietnamese junior, made the following
remarks:

You need to start doing well early on, because a lot of people wait until their senior
year or their junior year to be when they actually start getting into school, and
doing all the requirements. But, if you start off before and you’re prepared then it
makes the process easier; like getting your SATs done and applying for scholar-
ships, because then you’re not rushing at the end.

Sam’s comments illustrate how many participants understood the need to start
early and that taking exams and applying for scholarships were essential to the
college-going process. Lanette, a Khmer sophomore, added campus visits as
seminal to the planning:

I think it’s also important to visit college just because a lot of times you think that
you want to go to a college just because you hear the name or because it sounds like
12 Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 0(0)

a really good place to be based on what people are saying. Because you do have
your own feeling of whether it’s right to go to that college, because it was certain
colleges that I was looking forward to seeing, but then when I saw them they didn’t
give me the same feel as the same as other school that I wasn’t really ever thought
of it.

Forty-five SEAA (78%) agreed with Lanette and had been able to visit college
campuses. These students were involved with some kind of college preparation
mentoring programs such as Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for
Undergraduate Programs (GEAR-UP), Upward Bound, Talent Search, and
Student Support Services, while in high school where college visits were part
of the program. In other words, the majority of these SEAA understood the
application and vetting process of going to college because they had program-
matic support. In addition, they had access to and took advantage of teachers
and institutional agents within the school. Bopha, a Khmer senior reported:

Educational Talent Search (TRiO) really helped me with the college application
process. The program had me and a guidance counselor filling out the college
application. This was really helpful to me. The program also helped with touring
colleges which help me decide on the institution I wanted to ended up in.

This finding supports prior research (Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Tierney, 1999;

Valenzuela, 2010) that found that institutional agents played a critical role in
minority students’ academic lives. Stanton-Salazar (1997) defines institutional
agents as ‘‘one or more hierarchical positions of relatively high-status and
authority. Such an individual . . . acts to directly transmit, or negotiate the trans-
mission of, highly valued resources (e.g., high school course requirements for
admission to four-year universities)’’ (p. 5). But with the dearth of literature on
SEAA college students, these findings also highlight the need to further examine
attitudes and behaviors of SEAA students who do not have institutional agents
or college preparatory programs.

But ‘‘Money Was a Problem’’: Financial Aid Woes

The issue for these SEAA is not that they are incapable nor was it that they did
not understand the college-going process; rather, it was money. The second
theme that SEAA students talked about was how they felt generally less well
prepared for financial aid processes. Fifty-two percent of SEAA college students
reported understanding the financial aid process. Scholars have noted that finan-
cial factors such as financial aid have an effect on persistence (Paulsen &
St. John, 1997, 2002). Paulsen and St. John (1997) found that students in
public colleges considered tuition and living costs, proximity to home and
work, and availability of student grants as important factors in their persistence
Uy et al. 13

and retention. Siv, a first-generation college sophomore, stated, ‘‘[I] felt prepared
for classes I signed up with, but still not quite sure how or what qualifies you for
financial aid.’’ Johnny, a Vietnamese junior, reiterated:

Money was a problem during the application process. Not knowing how much
financial aid I would get affected my decision in my choosing process. Even now
I don’t know exactly how much I have to pay to remain in college.

SEAA college student in this study received support for applying and getting into
college but they did not receive enough information on how to finance their col-
lege education after their first year. Many of them did not understand what
qualifies them for work study or the difference between a Pell Grant versus a
Stafford Loan. Furthermore, once they were in college, they did not necessarily
feel well informed about student support services. Only 50% of the students have
learned about the support services and resources available on campus. In other
words, one in two of the SEAA students did not know that there are institutional
agents at their university to help students consider their financing options.

Not Ready for Prime Time: Career Readiness

Moreover, survey results about the preparation for careers were more equivocal.
Nineteen (33%) indicated that they did not have mentors to whom they could
turn to for advice about careers. First-generation SEAA college students often
have trouble finding role models on campus who they can relate to and who can
help them navigate the transition from college to careers. Whereas most students
had had exposure to college while in high school, only 10 respondents (17%)
indicated that they had had the opportunity to shadow a person in the career
field they wished to pursue. Thirty-two (55%) indicated that they did not have
the opportunity to study the career they want to pursue, and 25 (43%) indicated
that they do not feel that they have the required knowledge and skills needed for
the chosen career.
Most frequently, students expressed concern about the lack of career readi-
ness in response to the final open-response survey question, ‘‘Is there anything
else you would like for us to know about how ready you felt to go on to college
or start a career?’’ Answers ranged from ‘‘career options from each major was
confusing to me’’ to ‘‘I wish I knew what career opportunities I can have with
the major I want.’’ Other students expressed a need for ‘‘some co-op experience’’
since college had ‘‘not exposed [them] to many careers out there.’’ Two seniors
reported feeling not ready at all. Jenny, a Khmer senior majoring in Biology,
stated, ‘‘I am not ready at all because I am so close to graduating and I still have
no idea what I want to do.’’ Vuong, a Vietnamese senior majoring in computer
engineering, reiterated, ‘‘I am not ready to start my career because I have not
found opportunities to reach out to gain experience in my field.’’
14 Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 0(0)

Impact of Advising and Peer Mentoring

Academic majors played a large role in determining students’ experiences with
faculty advisors and career preparation. Students in Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics and health fields had more tightly structured
curricula but generally less positive experiences with advisors, although this
varied by specific department and advisor. Students in the humanities and
social sciences had less structured curricula but generally more positive experi-
ences with advisors. Logan, a Lao senior, explained:

There might be a gap between being a north campus major [primarily sciences and
engineering] and a south campus major [humanities, social sciences, and nursing],
because my best friend is a bio major and she told me that she doesn’t really get an
advisor until she can pass [Organic Chemistry].

In particular, the students saw this as the class ‘‘to weed people out.’’
Among the 35 focus group participants, there was one English major and a
handful of social science majors—namely political science and psychology—who
generally had positive experiences with faculty advisors. Deven, a political sci-
ence major, professed, ‘‘My advisor’s awesome. Basically, my career path is
what he did when he was younger so he’s giving me more advice than just classes
but life advice.’’ Judy, the English major, reflected:

I’m a creative [writing] concentration with English . . . So like at first I had one
advisor then I had another and then I ended up with [my current advisor]. And I
was really happy because she’s my first Asian [American] teacher ever, and I’m
about to be a senior, guys. She understands. She could make that connection with
me. So I’m like, ‘‘This is great.’’

Natalie, a psychology major working with an ethnic studies professor, added,

‘‘My advisor now has got me internships and co-ops and has helped me quit
[my job at the grocery store].’’ These students’ perspectives substantiate
Schademan and Thompson’s (2016) recent finding that instructors who
focus on developing authentic relationships with their students then allowed
them to serve as cultural agents for their students. For these first-generation
college students, having a faculty member who understands their experiences
and who can advocate for them had a positive—at times, invaluable—impact
on their lives and careers.
Yet in the sciences and engineering, which the vast majority of focus group
participants were majoring in, experiences with advisors were mixed. These stu-
dents reported not being comfortable as they went to see their advisor, not liking
their advisor, and generally not receiving any help from their advisors. Benny,
Uy et al. 15

a Civil Engineering junior explicated:

I don’t think advising is really helpful to me because for Civil Engineering . . . I’m
taking Physics and [I talked to the professor] and he said email your advisor and
I did and then my advisor was like I can’t really help you with this so you should
ask someone else for help. I didn’t know where I should go ask for help.

For first-generation students like Benny, they were frustrated by the lack of
assistance they received from advisors who not only could not help them but
also turned them away. Several students in the focus group told us that they
recognized that their advisors ‘‘don’t have time to talk to us’’ because faculty are
busy with research, clinical work, teaching, and other related work. As a result,
some students tried to solve their problems independently. Steve, a Political
Science senior, recalled, ‘‘Once I found my advisor was inadequate, I looked
through [online registration system] to learn. . . prerequisites to take classes and
just to confirm to get that hold off, just to meet with the advisor.’’ Collin, a
Vietnamese student, concurred:

You get answers by yourself. They might not have all the answers and so you can
always . . . go to the website and look on like your classes and . . . put it on yourself.
Sometimes the advisors can help you but to a certain extent. Sometimes you have to
research on your own and figure out by yourself.

As advisors, faculty members have the responsibility to find someone who could
help their advisee even if they do not know the answer themselves.
On the other hand, several students praised the advisors in their specific
majors. For instance, Latana, an Engineering junior, volunteered, ‘‘I don’t
know about everyone else’s major but the electrical engineering department,
the electrical engineering/computer engineering department, their advisors are
great. They actually go out of their way to help you.’’ Another student, Rich
responded, ‘‘I just want to go off [that] and say that the Chemical Engineering
Department has really good advisors too.’’ Similarly, in the nursing major,
which has a highly structured course of study, students saw advisors as basically
functional. Bounmy, a Khmer senior described:

So like with nursing, basically our schedules lined out for the entire four years.
Each semester you have to take this. There’s really little flexibility. And so basically
with my adviser, she gives me what I need for the years.

These students remind us how varied the SEAA student experiences are at one
university and how important the impact that good advising can have on a
students’ career development.
16 Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 0(0)

Untapped Resources: Student Associations

Across the board, however, students identified the need for peer student mentors
throughout their college careers. Rita described:

I think the number one thing is getting student mentors . . . Not like faculty men-
tors, not like professors, like fellow students who know what they’re doing, who are
like taking classes right now. Because they know what’s going on like recently.

SEAA students argue that student clubs and special programs are solutions to
issues of student isolation, alienation, and so forth. In the past, these students
drew on family members and social networks—alternative kinds of social cap-
ital—to help them identify majors and careers. The SEAA students relied on
advice from upperclassmen who share their plight and experiences. Jennifer
explained:

I think just knowing an upperclassman who is in your major is really helpful

because I have like three or four of them and they basically help me pick the
professor and the classes that I need for the next semester. They say, oh, that
professor, don’t take him. He just gives you homework and you study on your
own and stuff like that. That’s really good advice. And that part, your [faculty
advisor] cannot do that for you, like they wouldn’t judge a professor. They
wouldn’t know. What professor would best fit you and having a friend that
would know that was helpful.

For them, effective advising means someone who can relate to them and provide
answers in real time. Not a ‘‘faculty advisor’’ who has not been in college
recently nor a person who cannot relate to young people.
These findings are consistent with other studies that concluded that students
draw on peers and social networks—including clubs and organizations—to help
navigate educational institutions (Chhuon & Hudley, 2008; Tang et al., 2013).
As Tang and colleagues (2013) posit, SEAA students ‘‘actively [seek] out, devel-
oped, and valued peer. . . support’’ (p. 13). Like the Cambodian college students
in Chhuon and Hudley’s (2008) study, our students found support and encour-
agement from student ethnic and cultural groups on campus. Even if many
SEAA college students do not have the same kinds of social and cultural capital
as other groups (e.g., knowledge and financial assistance from parents and
families), some are savvy about seeking and creating alternative support systems.
When asked the SEAA students in our study stated that they would be open to
participating in a peer mentor group if the university offered it.
Educational institutions, therefore, can and should do more to support
students by improving advising across disciplines, particularly in engineering
and science fields. One interesting finding was that 25% of the SEAA students
were also very reluctant to ask for help outside of their family and friends,
Uy et al. 17

and they explicitly recognized this tendency. The two students below reflect this
sentiment:

Well for me personally, I think it’s the way I was kind of brought up. In my family
I was basically taught to always keep things to yourself. If it’s an issue, it should
never be an outside issue. It should always be a family issue or like if it’s not a
family issue, you have to take care of it yourself. For me, it’s actually very, very
hard to ask for help just because of that.

Well, it’s cultural—if you have a problem or something, you don’t ask for help
because it’s like weakness and stuff. I’ve watched my parents and mostly my father
have that mentality and see how he struggled and I’m like I still have time to change
so I’m going to do it. I’ve been reaching out more but I’m still having trouble.

For these two students, their cultural upbringing is inhibiting them from seeking
help. They fear that it will be construed as a sign of weakness. It is also prob-
lematic for first-generation college students since their families and friends will
not have any experiences with higher education to help them.
In summary, SEAA students discussed diverse experiences with advising and
career readiness. They spoke about effective advising in terms of the academic
support they received within their majors and within their social networks with
peers and upperclassmen. Some SEAA students were asking for help and being
turned away, whereas others were being supported programmatic by the nature
of the discipline. These students’ views of career readiness were more equivocal
and urge further investigation.

Conclusion
Since there are no baseline studies that examine the college and career readiness
of SEAA students, our study is one of the first studies to provide insights from
SEAA college students about how well they felt that their high schools prepared
them for college and how well one university was doing in supporting them
currently. However, since it is the perceptions of 58 SEAA, our sample cannot
be generalizable to other SEAA and marginalized groups.
However, echoing other studies, our survey findings suggest that while high
schools with a large minority population—particularly a large SEAA popula-
tion—may help prepare SEAA students for their first years in college, the
students are not generally well prepared for navigating the financial aid pro-
cesses and their specific majors. High schools could implement programs for
first-generation college students where they receive information about applica-
tion process, understanding funding sources, and the scope and sequence of
classes for certain majors. Guidance counselors need to get to know the students
and their interests in order for them to explain the necessity of certain classes
18 Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 0(0)

when scheduling. For example, premed majors need 4 years of laboratory sci-
ences (i.e., Biology, General Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, and Physics) and 1
year of English, whereas Engineer majors need 4 years of Math (i.e., Algebra,
Geometry, Probability and Statistics, and Calculus) and sciences. In addition,
having explicit information of what is needed in order to finance their college
education will pave the college pathway for SEAA students and increase their
likelihood to succeed.
Higher education, moreover, needs to do a better job of preparing its students
for careers. First-generation college students need more career development
information. To get into college, navigate college, and prepare for a career,
student associations and peer networks are invaluable to students. SEAA stu-
dents have reiterated the importance of peer mentors at all levels during their
high school and college careers. Therefore, a new family and support network
should be established at the colleges and universities for SEAA students. In such
a model, upperclassmen could be trained to become peer mentors to freshmen,
and peer mentors who share the same major could be assigned to every new
freshman so they have a buddy to answer various questions regarding classes to
how to adapt to college life. Likewise, graduate students could serve as mentors
to SEAA juniors and seniors who are interested in pursuing graduate studies in
their field, and recent alumni can help mentor those graduates entering the
workforce.
Furthermore, the focus groups suggested that advising for SEAA college
students—conducted primarily by faculty at SU Riverside—tended to be
better when faculty has some experience with developing authentic relationships
with their advisees. These finding reflect previous studies that call for teacher
training that includes historical knowledge and that is culturally responsive and
culturally relevant (Her, 2014; Uy, 2014). Faculty members need to be trained on
how to mentor students, especially first-generation immigrant and refugee stu-
dents. Most doctoral training programs do not include how to be a good
mentor. Thus, new faculty orientation could include how to get to know your
advisees, what are your program requirements, and what are the support ser-
vices on campus to refer students to. Improving advising in the sciences and
engineering—which most of our respondents were majoring in—would also
better serve SEAA students as well as the overall student population.
The variation in the SEAA student experiences suggests several things. First,
SEAA college students are a diverse, heterogeneous bunch, even though they
share some concerns and issues. Second, some very simple things—namely, sup-
port for peer mentoring and better advising—can help students across the board,
even if they are very different from one another. Third, faculty and peer men-
toring can address the social capital gap for these first-generation college stu-
dents and provide realistic knowledge regarding workload required to succeed at
the college level (Atherton, 2014).
Uy et al. 19

College readiness and retention and career preparedness among SEAA stu-
dents depend on a number of interwoven academic, contextual, and cultural
factors. The SEAA college students in our study are performing well academic-
ally—above the average for SEAAs—yet they still struggle with issues of family,
culture, race, class, and so on. They have familial, cultural, and racial demands
placed on them that other college students do not necessarily face.
A future direction for research is to look deeper into what creates these
inequalities. We need to define what inequalities look like for first-generation
SEA college students. Are colleges and universities making assumptions about
what freshmen know and are able to do coming into their first year such as
changing majors, working with advisors, and asking for help? As Ngo and Lee
(2007) assert,

Although the research on the role of culture has done a great deal to illuminate the
salience of culture in the education of Southeast Asian students, an exclusive focus
on culture fails to capture the significance of structural opportunities on student
responses to education. In cases of academic underachievement, a sole focus on
culture serves to blame the victims.’’ (p. 440)

Our study suggests that even when students are doing well academically, the
issue of structural inequalities—who has knowledge of, access to, and are ser-
viced by current programs—persist and must be examined.
Our study also suggests that colleges and universities can provide more sup-
port to first-generation college students. While traditional colleges may not have
the human capital to support first-generation SEAA students, we recommend
that they hire college specialists who have similar job functions as TRIO and
gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs program
staff have done for high school students. These college specialists could help
students by designing career fairs, facilitating internships, supporting college
professors with advisement, and developing a college advisory curriculum to
track students from college to career or job placement. In addition, colleges
and universities could create an accessible website with resources and tools to
help students navigate college and career pathways for both first-generation
college students and more general college student body. This site can organize
information and multimedia resources that college students need to understand
in order to successfully graduate and matriculate into a career. Centralizing all
this information would be helpful to all college students, not just the first-
generation SEAA students.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
20 Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 0(0)

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article: The authors would like to thank University of
Massachusetts-Boston’s Asian American Student Success Program for funding this
research study.

Note
1. All names in this study are pseudonyms.

References
Atherton, M. C. (2014). Academic preparedness of first generation college students:
Different perspectives. Journal of College Student Development, 55(8), 824–829.
Baber, L. D., Castro, E. L., & Bragg, D. D. (2010). Measuring success: David Conley’s
college readiness framework and the Illinois college and career readiness act.
Champaign, IL: Office of Community College Research and Leadership, University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and
research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York, NY: Greenwood
Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture.
London, England: Sage Publications.
Charmaz, K. (2005). Grounded theory: Methods for the 21st century. Handbook of
Qualitative Research (3rd ed.). London, England: Sage.
Chaudhari, P., Chan, J., & Ha, S. (2013). APIASF scholar perspectives: A national report
on the needs and experiences of low-income Asian American and Pacific Islander
Scholarship recipients. Washington, DC: Asian & Pacific Island American
Scholarship Fund.
Chhuon, V., & Hudley, C. (2008). Factors supporting Cambodian American students’
successful adjustment into the university. Journal of College Student Development,
49(1), 15–30.
Choy, S. P. (2001). Students whose parents did not go to college: Postsecondary access,
persistence, and attainment. (National Center for Education Statistics Rep. No. NCES
2001–126). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology, 94, 95–120.
Conley, D. (2003). Understanding university success: A report from Standards for Success
(No. ED476300). Eugene, OR: Center for Educational Policy Research.
Conley, D. T. (2010). College and career ready: Helping all students succeed beyond high
school. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Conley, D. T., & McGaughy, C. (2012). College and career readiness: Same or different.
Educational Leadership, 69(7), 28–34.
Cushman, K. (2005). First in the family, your college years. Providence, RI: Next
Generation Press.
Her, C. (2014). Ready or not: The academic college readiness of Southeast Asian
Americans. Multicultural Perspectives, 16(1), 35–42.
Uy et al. 21

Hune, S. (2002). Demographics and diversity of Asian American college students. In M.

K. McEwen, et al (Eds), Working with Asian American college students: New direc-
tions for student services (Vol. 97). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family-school relationships: The importance
of cultural capital. Sociology of Education, 60, 73–85.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity
in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 30, 73–84.
Louie, V. (2004). Compelled to Excel: Immigration, education, and opportunity among
Chinese Americans. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Maramba, D. C. (2011). The importance of critically disaggregating data: The case of
Southeast Asian American college students. AAPI Nexus, 9(1/2), 127–133.
McGregor, L. N., Mayleben, M. A., Buzznaga, M. A., Davis, S. F., & Becker, A. H.
(1991). Selected personality characteristics of first-generation college students. College
and University, 70, 14–19.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education:
Revised and expanded from Case Study Research in Education. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Mueller, D., & Gozali-Lee, E. (2013). College and career readiness: A review and analysis
conducted for generation next. Saint Paul, MN: Wilder Research.
Museus, S. (2013). Unpacking the complex and multifaceted nature of parental influences
on Southeast Asian American college students’ educational trajectories. The Journal of
Higher Education, 84(5), 708–738.
National Commission on Asian American and Pacific Islander Research in Education.
(2011). The relevance of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in the college completion
agenda. New York, NY: CARE.
Ngo, B. (2006). Learning from the margins: The education of Southeast and South Asian
Americans in context. Race, Ethnicity & Education, 9(1), 51–65.
Ngo, B., & Lee, S. J. (2007). Complicating the image of model minority success: A review
of Southeast Asian American education. Review of Educational Research, 77(4),
415–453.
Niedzwiecki, M., & Duong, T. (2004). Southeast Asian American statistical profile.
Washington, DC: Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC).
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2012). Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA) results from PISA 2012: United States key
findings. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/PISA-2012-results-US.pdf
Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., Wolniak, G. C., & Terenzini, P. T. (2004). First-gen-
eration college students: Additional evidence on college experience and outcome. The
Journal of Higher Education, 75(3), 249–284.
Paulsen, M. B., & St. John, E. P. (1997). The financial nexus between college choice and
persistence. New Directions for Institutional Research, 1997(95), 65–82.
Paulsen, M. B., & St. John, E. P. (2002). Social class and college costs: Examining the
financial nexus between college choice and persistence. Journal of Higher Education,
73(2), 189–236.
Poon, O., & Byrd, A. (2013). Beyond tiger mom anxiety: Ethnic, gender, and generational
differences in Asian American college access and choices. Journal of College
Admission, 221, 22–31.
22 Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 0(0)

Reid, M. J., & Moore, J. L. III. (2008). College readiness and academic preparation for
postsecondary education: Oral histories of first-generation urban college students.
Urban Education, 43(2), 240–261.
Roderick, M., Nagaoka, J., & Coca, V. (2009). College readiness for all: The challenge for
urban high schools. Future of Children, 19(1), 185–210.
Sakamoto, A., & Woo, H. (2007). The socio-economic attainments of second-generation
Cambodian, Hmong, Laotian, and Vietnamese Americans. Sociological Inquiry, 77(1),
44–75.
Schademan, A. R., & Thompson, M. R. (2016). Are college faculty and first-generation,
low-income students ready for each other? Journal of College Student Retention:
Research, Theory & Practice, 18(2), 194–216.
Shaw, D. (2014). Rethinking remediation for college students: Using preservice education
students in connection to high school AP classes. New England Reading Association,
50(1), 38–43.
Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC). (2011). Southeast Asian Americans
at a glance: Statistics on Southeast Asians adapted from the American Community
Survey. Washington, DC: SEARAC.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the social-
ization of racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review, 67(91),
1–40.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N.
K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273–285).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Tang, J., Kim, S., & Haviland, D. (2013). Role of family, culture, and peers in the success
of first-generation Cambodian American college students. Journal of Southeast Asian
American Education and Advancement, 8(1), 1–18.
Tierney, W. G. (1999). Models of minority college-going and retention: Cultural integrity
versus cultural suicide. The Journal of Negro Education, 68(10), 80–91.
Uy, P. S. (2014). Khmerican and Lao American youth’s contested ethnic identities:
Perspectives that move teachers beyond race. In K. Kumashiro & B. Ngo (Eds.),
Six lenses for anti-oppressive education: Partial stories, improbable conversations.
New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Valenzuela, A. (2010). Subtractive schooling: US-Mexican youth and the politics of caring.
New York, NY: SUNY Press.
Wright, W. E., & Boun, S. (2011). Southeast Asian American education 35 years after
initial resettlement: Research report and policy recommendations. Journal of
Southeast Asian American Education and Advancement, 6(1), 1–77.

Author Biographies
Phitsamay S. Uy is an assistant professor of Leadership in Schooling and core
faculty member of the Center for Asian American Studies at the University of
Massachusetts Lowell. Her recent publications include ‘‘Unpacking Racial
Identities: The Salience of Ethnicity in Southeast Asian American Youth’s
Schooling Experience’’ in Race, Ethnicity, and Education. (2016)
Uy et al. 23

Sue J. Kim is a professor of English and Co-Director of the Center for Asian
American Studies at the University of Massachusetts Lowell. She is the author
of On Anger: Race, Cognition, Narrative (2013) and Critiquing Postmodernism in
Contemporary Discourses of Race (2009), and coedited Rethinking Empathy
Through Literature (2014).

Chrisna Khuon is a senior studying Peace and Conflict Studies with an English
minor at the University of Massachusetts Lowell. She is also a research assistant
for the Center for Asian American Studies at the University of Massachusetts
Lowell.