Understanding Inequity in Graduation Rates at Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs): An Intersectional Analysis by Race, Gender, and First-Generation College Status

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper endeavors to show that an intersectionality theoretical framework adds to our understanding of challenges to Latinx college students’ academic progress.  Specifically, the paper argues that the framework suggests that academic and applied researchers’ analyses should include “parent/guardian educational attainment data” on Latinx college students (p. 1).  Including such data, in the authors’ view, would lead to policies that would improve Latinx college students’ academic progress (i.e., increase the students’ retention and graduation rates and decrease the students’ placement in so-called developmental courses).

 

There are many problems, however, with this paper – not the least of which is that the data analysis (presented in eight tables) is unrelated to the paper’s main argument.  We already know that Latinx college students, particularly those at HSIs, are from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds.  Thus, we really do not learn much from this paper.  Moreover, nothing in the paper’s data analysis shows how we could improve the educational outcomes of Latinx students.  In part, this is because the thorny issues of culture and achievement motivation are totally ignored.

 

The paper’s data analysis is also based on what the authors recognize (p. 15) as an extremely flawed data set, which is missing many cases and is of highly questionable quality, given that the data were collected for bureaucratic purposes rather than for social-scientific investigation.  But even if we could trust the paper’s statistical estimates, the paper would suffer because there are no coherent connections among the paper’s introduction, data analysis, and discussion and conclusions.

 

The introduction (pp. 1-5) attempts to build on intersectionality theory, summarized in Figure 1.  However, there are no measures of “hegemonic culture” or “structural domain” or “power” in the analysis.  So much of what we read in the introduction is irrelevant to the rest of the paper.

 

The literature reviews about first-generation students and the historical backgrounds of the HSIs under investigation (pp. 5-8) are also largely irrelevant to the data analysis.  Hence, these reviews do little more than add dead weight to the paper.

 

Not only are the data analyses (pp. 8-15) based on flawed data, the regression models almost certainly suffer from  multicollinearity problems, given the many interaction terms (two- and three-way cross-product terms).  Therefore, it is not surprising that relatively few of the slope coefficients are statistically significant.  In point of fact, only four of 18 slopes in Table 2 and only four of 18 slopes in Table 4 are significant at 95% or better.  By the way, I wouldn’t count a 90% level as “statistically significant” since the Ns in the regressions are relatively large.

 

The discussion section (pp. 15-16) is a free-standing rendition of widely disseminated policy prescriptions for enhancing Black and Latinx student outcomes on college campuses.  Unfortunately, there is no proof, in the present paper or in the broader academic literature, that these prescriptions actually yield the desired results.  The authors, in fact, cite no studies to empirically support these prescriptions.

 

The paper’s last section (pp. 16-17) is a fanciful essay, steeped in the rhetoric of critical race ideology and other progressive belief systems, that is free-standing and disconnected from the data analysis.  This section is, for the most part, an exercise in creative writing and social-justice activism.

 

In closing, the manuscript consists of three or four unrelated sections, each of which has numerous shortcomings in conceptualization and execution.  There are additional problems, too, such as the inclusion of unsubstantiated anecdotal incidents (e.g., about “White administrators” [p. 1]) and statements of group-identity politics (e.g., about “critical self-reflection” [p. 5]).  In the end, the paper presents nothing novel, either theoretically or empirically, so with all due respect to the authors, we do not learn much from their efforts.

Author Response

We appreciate Reviewer 1’s careful engagement, even though we respectfully disagree with several
core assessments. We have made a number of structural and conceptual changes that address
many of the concerns while also clarifying the contributions of the study.

Comment 1: Central argument and relevance of the analysis
Reviewer Comment: “This paper argues that intersectionality implies analyses should include
parent/guardian educational attainment data... The data analysis is unrelated to the paper’s main
argument.” Response: We appreciate this concern. In the revised manuscript, the central argument
is now clearly stated as an intersectional analysis of graduation and developmental course
placement at HSIs. Parent/guardian education is no longer framed as the primary argument, but
rather as one implication for improving data infrastructure. The Introduction has been rewritten
to clarify the research question and contributions, and a summary paragraph now previews the
intersectional analytic strategy.

Comment 2: “We already know” these students are disadvantaged
Reviewer Comment: “We already know that Latinx students at HSIs are disadvantaged. Thus,
we do not learn much.” Response: We have clarified that the contribution is not about showing
disadvantage broadly, but about revealing which specific intersectional social locations (e.g.,
first-generation American Indian men, continuing-generation Black men, first-generation Hispanic
men) experience the most substantial inequities. These patterns are invisible in standard
race-only or gender-only reporting. We now foreground these intersectional findings prominently
in the Introduction and Results.

Comment 3: Lack of coherence between introduction, analysis, and conclusions
Reviewer Comment: “There are no coherent connections among the introduction, analysis, and
conclusions.” Response: We agree this needed improvement. The revised manuscript includes a clear roadmap at the end of the Introduction; new transitions in the Results; and an expanded Discussion that synthesizes findings, theory, and implications. The Conclusion has been rewritten to tie directly to the empirical results and theoretical framing.

Comment 4: Use of intersectionality and Figure 1
Reviewer Comment: “Figure 1 summarizes intersectionality domains not actually measured; the
introduction is therefore irrelevant.” Response: We now explicitly state that intersectionality provides
conceptual scaffolding rather than a direct variable-to-domain mapping. Section 2.2 clarifies
how the matrix of domination informs the selection of social locations and interpretation of
institutionalized inequities. Figure 1 is described as a diagnostic and interpretive tool rather than
as a list of measured variables.

Comment 5: Literature review and institutional context “irrelevant”
Reviewer Comment: “The first-generation literature and historical backgrounds add deadweight.”
Response: We respectfully disagree. Context is essential for intersectional and QuantCrit analyses.
However, we have streamlined these sections and made their relevance explicit by linking
them directly to analytic choices and interpretation. Section 2.1 now provides a focused
HSI/first-generation literature review, and Sections 2.5–2.6 now explicitly connect historical and
institutional context to equity metrics and interpretation.

Comment 6: Data quality, missingness, and “bureaucratic” data
Reviewer Comment: “The dataset is extremely flawed and missing many cases. The data were
collected for bureaucratic rather than scientific purposes.” Response: We appreciate this concern
and now include a dedicated subsection on missing first-generation data and its implications.
We clarify how FAFSA-linked and administrative data were constructed, describe missingness
patterns, and reiterate that we make no causal claims. Instead, we analyze the same data
used for institutional accountability and show how intersectional metrics provide more accurate
equity insights.

Comment 7: Multicollinearity in interaction models
Reviewer Comment: “The regression models almost certainly suffer from multicollinearity due
to many interaction terms.” Response: We acknowledge the concern and clarify that our main
quantities of interest are predicted probabilities and linear combinations representing social locations,
which are robust to collinearity among interaction coefficients. We also emphasize effect
sizes and patterns rather than strict p-values in interpretation.

Comment 8: Policy implications “unsupported by evidence”
Reviewer Comment: “Policy prescriptions are unconvincing and unsupported.” Response: The
Discussion now clearly separates empirical interpretation from policy implications. Each policy
implication is explicitly linked to specific quantitative findings and supported by empirical literature
on developmental education, equity dashboards, co-requisite models, and data systems.
The section has been significantly expanded and strengthened.

Comment 9: Conclusion as “fanciful essay”
Reviewer Comment: “The conclusion is creative writing and disconnected from the analysis.”
Response: We have removed the extended imagined-future narrative and replaced it with a concise,
analytically grounded conclusion that summarizes the empirical contributions and implications
for HSI servingness.

Comment 10: Anecdotes and positionality
Reviewer Comment: “Anecdotal incidents and statements of group-identity politics undermine
the paper.” Response: We have refined the anecdotal material to clarify that it reflects the authors’
positionality and institutional experience, aligning with intersectionality’s emphasis on reflexive
knowledge production. The language has been tightened to ensure analytic relevance and
avoid misinterpretation.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author/s, 

Overall, the manuscript presents a rigorous and methodologically sound quantitative analysis that advances the understanding of intersectional inequities in higher education by comparing outcomes across two public universities in the U.S. Southwest. The results section is rich in statistical detail and well-supported by hierarchical models and marginal effects, effectively highlighting disparities in graduation rates and developmental course placements across race, gender, and first-generation status.

However, the section would benefit from greater narrative cohesion and interpretive depth, as the transition between descriptive, inferential, and interpretive elements is at times abrupt. The absence of a dedicated literature review is a significant structural gap, as it limits the theoretical anchoring of the findings and prevents readers from fully appreciating the study’s contribution to existing research in QuantCrit, intersectionality, and higher education equity. A focused literature review should synthesize prior scholarship, clarify theoretical frameworks, and justify the operationalization of social location through the intersections of race, gender, and first-generation status.

Additionally, the paper would gain clarity from improved transitions between subsections, explicit links between statistical results and theoretical implications, and a more integrated discussion of limitations—particularly regarding missing data and the broad definition of first-generation status. Strengthening these elements, alongside tighter framing around institutional and historical context, would elevate the manuscript from a technically proficient study to a conceptually cohesive and theoretically robust contribution to the field.

The results section demonstrates a thorough quantitative approach and offers valuable insights into institutional disparities across multiple dimensions—graduation rates, placement in developmental mathematics, and developmental English courses—using a nuanced intersectional framework. The hierarchical modeling and subsequent disaggregation by social location are both methodologically rigorous and analytically rich. The tables are comprehensive, well-labeled, and supported by precise interpretation.

However, while the technical execution of the statistical analysis is strong, the overall narrative flow would benefit from additional cohesion and contextual framing. Currently, the section transitions rapidly from descriptive statistics to regression analyses and then to interpretative commentary without sufficient integration or signposting. For instance, clearer subheadings or transitional sentences could help guide readers from descriptive trends to inferential results, emphasizing how each analytical step deepens the understanding of intersectional inequities.

In its current form, the section assumes a high level of reader familiarity with QuantCrit and intersectionality frameworks but does not sufficiently position the empirical findings in relation to existing research. This absence of engagement with prior literature limits the interpretive depth and theoretical coherence of the analysis. A dedicated literature review section is therefore essential to establish a clear foundation for the study’s contribution.

Specifically, I truelly encourage the inclusion in the paper of a theoretical revision section that:

1. Synthesizes prior scholarship on graduation rate disparities, developmental placement, and intersectional inequities in higher education, particularly within Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) and public university contexts.

2. Clarifies theoretical grounding, linking the quantitative results to broader debates in QuantCrit, intersectionality, and structural racism in educational research.

3. Identifies research gaps that justify the need for this comparative institutional approach between SU and BU.

4. Explains conceptual choices, such as why “social location” is operationalized through the intersection of race, gender, and first-generation status, and how this aligns with or extends existing frameworks.

Additionally, while the results are clearly presented, the discussion of limitations—although informative—could be more explicitly tied to the interpretive consequences for the findings. For instance, the high proportion of missing first-generation data and the broad definition of the construct warrant reflection on how these constraints may bias the estimates or the comparability across institutions.

Finally, in terms of academic development, it seems advisable to:

• Strengthen the logical continuity between the quantitative findings and the theoretical implications outlined in the discussion.

• Ensure that the presentation of tables and models is followed by concise interpretative paragraphs that highlight substantive, rather than purely statistical, implications.

• Introduce a brief transitional paragraph at the start of Section 3 linking the results to the study’s aims, theoretical premises, and future QuantCrit-Intersectionality analyses mentioned later.

However, overall, the study presents a robust and promising empirical foundation. With the addition of a well-structured literature review and improved narrative cohesion across analytical sections, the paper would achieve greater academic rigor and theoretical integration, ensuring that its findings contribute meaningfully to both intersectionality and higher education research.

Author Response

We thank Reviewer 2 for a constructive and encouraging review. We found the suggestions extremely
helpful and have implemented all major recommendations.
Comment 1: Need for a dedicated literature review
We added two focused literature review subsections: (a) on HSIs and first-generation students,
and (b) on intersectionality and QuantCrit in higher education. These sections establish the theoretical
and empirical context for our contribution.

Comment 2: Improve narrative flow of Results
We added transitional paragraphs that explain the sequencing from descriptive statistics to multivariate
models to intersectional predicted probabilities. Subsection headings and signposting
have been improved.

Comment 3: Interpretive paragraphs after tables
We now include interpretive paragraphs following each major table, emphasizing substantive
patterns, intersectional inequities, and implications for equity.

Comment 4: Integrated discussion of limitations
We expanded the discussion of missingness, the broad first-generation measure, and limitations
of administrative data. These limitations are reiterated in the Discussion and Conclusion.

Comment 5: Strengthen policy implications and unpack connections
We reorganized the Discussion and Policy sections. Policy implications are now introduced with
clear signposting (“One implication... A second implication...”) and each is tied explicitly to empirical
results. We opted for structured paragraphs rather than bullets to maintain narrative flow.

Comment 6: Conclusion structure
We removed the earlier extended narrative and now provide a concise, empirically grounded
conclusion.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments:

Thank you for the opportunity to review this excellent manuscript, which is both timely and incredibly important. I have no major concerns with the paper and only some minor recommendations for improving the manuscript.

Specific comments:

1. Introduction:

1. First paragraph- are the ellipses referring to information that has been removed for the blind manuscript? If not, I would recommend removing the ellipses
2. End of first paragraph- period should be after citation
3. Paragraph starting with "Subordinated groups"- please use the block quote format for this, as in this format, it appears as though this paragraph was written by the authors, as opposed to being quoted from Collins 2017
4. I would recommend including your research question(s) explicitly before you describe how the article will break down in three sections

2. Materials and methods:

1. Pg 3- Figure description should be on the same page as the figure
2. Pg 4 "Note"- I would recommend including this as either a footnote or part of the figure itself, either in the description or in smaller text directly under it, depending upon journal formatting policies
3. Pg 6- I would recommend either a table or a bulleted list for the lines "A history of isolation..." through "Consistent underfunding of public education..."
4. Pg 7- Are SU and BU meant to be blinded for review only, or for publication as well? With all of the details provided at the top of pg 7, neither institution is anonymized any longer. If real institutional names will be included in the final manuscript, please disregard my comment, but if SU and BU will be used in the final manuscript, many specifics from these paragraphs should be removed for anonymity 

3. Results

1. Tables 1-7 "Sources" paragraph- recommend either footnote or more integrated into table descriptions; they all look like regular paragraphs as part of the manuscript narrative with current formatting

4. Discussion

1. For the policy implications, I'd recommend a bulleted list or table, depending on journal policy, to display these
2. I would also recommend unpacking each and every policy implication, including by connecting them to the Results presented. At the moment, this Discussion appears as only a list of topics and not an actual discussion of the results given and how they connect to the literature presented in the Introduction and Materials and Methods

5. Conclusions

1. What purpose does the quote at the start of Conclusions serve? How does it connect, and why put it here? It feels very out of place as a starter for this section, when the section should start with your Big Takeaway for the audience
2. The imagined stories of 30 years future are beautiful, but I'm not sure they play into the narrative the way you as the authors want them to do. To me as a reader, they're a long, winding way to end a research paper that tells me very little about the paper I just read or the actionable steps the analysis recommends for creating change. With that in mind, I would recommend either shortening the future stories, or more directly connecting them to the results and to the expanded discussion section

Author Response

We thank Reviewer 3 for a highly positive and supportive review and for the helpful minor suggestions.
Comment 1: Ellipses and punctuation
We removed unnecessary ellipses and corrected punctuation in the Introduction.
Comment 2: Block quote formatting
The Collins (2017) passage is now formatted as a block quotation with proper attribution.
Comment 3: Additional stylistic edits
We applied all stylistic and minor formatting recommendations offered by Reviewer 3. The manuscript
has been carefully copyedited for consistency and correctness.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the authors have worked hard to address my concerns, I still am not convinced that the paper substantially contributes to knowledge about graduation-rate inequality.

Author Response

Without any detail or context surrounding this feedback, we would note that, as detailed in the response letter, we have clarified that the contribution is not about showing disadvantage broadly, but about revealing which specific intersectional social locations (e.g., first-generation American Indian men, continuing-generation Black men, first-generation Hispanic men) experience the most substantial inequities. These patterns are invisible in standard race-only or gender-only reporting. We now foreground these intersectional findings prominently in the Introduction and Results.