Concept List Education & Work
Lecture 1:
Blau & Duncan’s Status Attainment Model (1967) – aka OED-model:
Your education largely decides where you end up on the labour market.
Inequality of outcome versus inequality of opportunity
Inequality of outcome because of talent is often accepted (largely because of
the investment made to get to the point). But not everyone has the same
opportunities, this is called inequality of opportunity. We tend to accept inequality of
outcome if we see differences in potential as ready explanations.
Meritocracy
The meritocratic ideal is that talent combined with effort, results in success.
The more we belief in a meritocracy, the easier it is to see failure as a lack of effort.
By blaming the individuals for their failures, we might not see the inequality of
opportunity. It is important to be aware of the contributions of your success (school,
parents, tutors, etc.).
Primary versus secondary effects of social background on education (Boudon)
According to van de Werfhorst & Hofstede, “primary effects refer to
educational inequalities in terms of early demonstrated academic ability (either
through genetic, biological, economic, or cultural factors – see Goldthorpe)”.
According to van de Werfhorst & Hofstede, “secondary effects refer to
educational inequalities that persist after controlling for class differences in ability,
thus more strongly focusing on ambitions and choices of children of different social
classes”.
, Thus primary effects are about the achievement itself (e.g., test scores and
grades), and secondary effects are about the choice given the achievement (e.g.,
track placement and continuation in education).
Primary effects of social background on education are: (1) talking more to
your children gives them a larger vocabulary (not done consciously), (2) different
‘habits’ such as reading and extra-curricular activities, (3) motivation and role
modelling, and (4) tutoring and ‘shadow education’.
According to Erikson et al. (2005), primary effects are three times stronger
than secondary effects in England and Wales. But this ratio might depend on the
educational system (choice-based or achieved-based / age of selection / etc.).
Cultural capital, as measured by parental involvement in highbrow culture,
affected school performance at the primary and secondary level. However, RRA –
operationalized by being concerned with downward mobility – strongly affects
schooling ambitions, whereas cultural capital has no effect. Thus, it is concluded that
‘primary effects’ of social origin on schooling outcomes are manifested through
cultural capital and not RRA.
Cultural Reproduction Theory (Bourdieu):
Cultural reproduction theory seeks to explain class variation in schooling by
cultural differences between social classes.
Ensuring domination of dominant classes by accumulating and passing on
resources (happens unintentionally).
Relative Risk Aversion (RRA) (Boudon, 1974; Breen & Goldthorpe 1996)
Parents with lower socio-economic status (SES) make different educational
choices (given the same achievement of their children). Relative Risk Aversion
assumes that children take their parents’ social position as reference to their own
aspirations. The most important goal in RRA is avoiding downward mobility.
At individual level it is hard to test because the concept of RRA has not been
wildly used in research.
Rational Choice Explanations of educational inequality
Offers an alternative to the still dominant cultural and norm-based theories on
educational inequality (such as Bourdieu’s Cultural Reproduction Theory), by
focusing on the costs and benefits of educational decisions, and arguing that this
evaluation of costs and benefits varies across social classes.
Different educational systems
Lecture 1:
Blau & Duncan’s Status Attainment Model (1967) – aka OED-model:
Your education largely decides where you end up on the labour market.
Inequality of outcome versus inequality of opportunity
Inequality of outcome because of talent is often accepted (largely because of
the investment made to get to the point). But not everyone has the same
opportunities, this is called inequality of opportunity. We tend to accept inequality of
outcome if we see differences in potential as ready explanations.
Meritocracy
The meritocratic ideal is that talent combined with effort, results in success.
The more we belief in a meritocracy, the easier it is to see failure as a lack of effort.
By blaming the individuals for their failures, we might not see the inequality of
opportunity. It is important to be aware of the contributions of your success (school,
parents, tutors, etc.).
Primary versus secondary effects of social background on education (Boudon)
According to van de Werfhorst & Hofstede, “primary effects refer to
educational inequalities in terms of early demonstrated academic ability (either
through genetic, biological, economic, or cultural factors – see Goldthorpe)”.
According to van de Werfhorst & Hofstede, “secondary effects refer to
educational inequalities that persist after controlling for class differences in ability,
thus more strongly focusing on ambitions and choices of children of different social
classes”.
, Thus primary effects are about the achievement itself (e.g., test scores and
grades), and secondary effects are about the choice given the achievement (e.g.,
track placement and continuation in education).
Primary effects of social background on education are: (1) talking more to
your children gives them a larger vocabulary (not done consciously), (2) different
‘habits’ such as reading and extra-curricular activities, (3) motivation and role
modelling, and (4) tutoring and ‘shadow education’.
According to Erikson et al. (2005), primary effects are three times stronger
than secondary effects in England and Wales. But this ratio might depend on the
educational system (choice-based or achieved-based / age of selection / etc.).
Cultural capital, as measured by parental involvement in highbrow culture,
affected school performance at the primary and secondary level. However, RRA –
operationalized by being concerned with downward mobility – strongly affects
schooling ambitions, whereas cultural capital has no effect. Thus, it is concluded that
‘primary effects’ of social origin on schooling outcomes are manifested through
cultural capital and not RRA.
Cultural Reproduction Theory (Bourdieu):
Cultural reproduction theory seeks to explain class variation in schooling by
cultural differences between social classes.
Ensuring domination of dominant classes by accumulating and passing on
resources (happens unintentionally).
Relative Risk Aversion (RRA) (Boudon, 1974; Breen & Goldthorpe 1996)
Parents with lower socio-economic status (SES) make different educational
choices (given the same achievement of their children). Relative Risk Aversion
assumes that children take their parents’ social position as reference to their own
aspirations. The most important goal in RRA is avoiding downward mobility.
At individual level it is hard to test because the concept of RRA has not been
wildly used in research.
Rational Choice Explanations of educational inequality
Offers an alternative to the still dominant cultural and norm-based theories on
educational inequality (such as Bourdieu’s Cultural Reproduction Theory), by
focusing on the costs and benefits of educational decisions, and arguing that this
evaluation of costs and benefits varies across social classes.
Different educational systems
