Week 3: Stratification

1. WEEK 3:
STRATIFICATION & MOBILITY IN EDUCATION
Melanie Tannenbaum, M.A.
Sociology 463/663
Spring 2015

2. New York Times, June 12, 2013

3. THE BIG QUESTION
Is education the great equalizer?
!
or…
!
Does education create & replicate existing patterns of inequality?

4. SOME IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS
Status:The level of an occupation in the stratification hierarchy
!
Social Mobility:A change in level in the stratification hierarchy

5. THEORIES OF STRATIFICATION
Marx: Reproduction of power/class inequalities through education.
Weber:Three hierarchical dimensions.
Class: Economic position of individuals/groups.
Status: Groups of shared values & lifestyles.
Party: Groups of shared political interests & actions.

6. STATUS ATTAINMENT
Correlation between parents and children’s educational attainments: r = .40
!
Correlation between educational attainment and occupational status: r = .60
!
How does stratification and “sorting” of individuals into strata take place?

7. STATUS ATTAINMENT MODEL
BLAU & DUNCAN (1967)
Educational attainment (2)
Family Social Status (1)
Status of
first job (3)
Status of
later job (4)

8. STATUS ATTAINMENT MODEL
BLAU & DUNCAN (1967)
Educational attainment (2)
Family Social Status (1)
Status of
first job (3)
Status of
later job (4)
Three Basic Propositions

9. STATUS ATTAINMENT MODEL
BLAU & DUNCAN (1967)
Educational attainment (2)
Family Social Status (1)
Status of
first job (3)
Status of
later job (4)
Proposition #1

10. STATUS ATTAINMENT MODEL
BLAU & DUNCAN (1967)
Educational attainment (2)
Family Social Status (1)
Status of
first job (3)
Status of
later job (4)
Proposition #2

11. STATUS ATTAINMENT MODEL
BLAU & DUNCAN (1967)
Educational attainment (2)
Family Social Status (1)
Status of
first job (3)
Status of
later job (4)
Proposition #3

12. STATUS ATTAINMENT MODEL
BLAU & DUNCAN (1967)
Educational attainment (2)
Family Social Status (1)
Status of
first job (3)
Status of
later job (4)
Fundamental idea of a process of status attainment.

13. STATUS ATTAINMENT MODEL
BLAU & DUNCAN (1967)
Educational attainment (2)
Family Social Status (1)
Status of
first job (3)
Status of
later job (4)
Social psychology?
Mediating variables?

14. STATUS ATTAINMENT MODEL
How and why does SES/social status/social class translate into…
Different levels of academic achievement?
Different levels of educational attainment?

15. SES
of origin
Family
Structure
Ability
Educational
Attainment
Academic
Performance
Influence of
significant others
Educational
Ambition
WISCONSIN MODEL
SEWELL & HAUSER, 1980
The degree to which significant others encourage a young person varies
according to family social status and child’s demonstrated ability.

16. SES
of origin
Family
Structure
Ability
Educational
Attainment
Academic
Performance
Influence of
significant others
Educational
Ambition
WISCONSIN MODEL
SEWELL & HAUSER, 1980

17. SES
of origin
Family
Structure
Ability
Educational
Attainment
Academic
Performance
Influence of
significant others
Educational
Ambition
WISCONSIN MODEL
SEWELL & HAUSER, 1980

18. SES
of origin
Family
Structure
Ability
Educational
Attainment
Academic
Performance
Influence of
significant others
Educational
Ambition
Lareau
WISCONSIN MODEL
SEWELL & HAUSER, 1980

19. SES
of origin
Family
Structure
Ability
Educational
Attainment
Academic
Performance
Influence of
significant others
Educational
Ambition
WISCONSIN MODEL
SEWELL & HAUSER, 1980
Significant Others: Parents,Teachers, and Peers

20. SES
of origin
Family
Structure
Ability
Educational
Attainment
Academic
Performance
Influence of
significant others
Educational
Ambition
WISCONSIN MODEL
SEWELL & HAUSER, 1980
Social Psychological Variables: Significant others’ influence & ambition

21. SES
of origin
Family
Structure
Ability
Educational
Attainment
Academic
Performance
Influence of
significant others
Educational
Ambition
WISCONSIN MODEL
SEWELL & HAUSER, 1980
Strengths: Focused on the dynamics of educational attainment and viewed
the process as based on motivation and interpersonal influences.

22. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECTS
Significant-Other Influence & Ambition
Significant others help shape ambitions
Many individuals have goals that correspond to social position
Many individuals have corresponding expectations
Alternative interpretations of “educational ambition”
Useful for explaining outcome differences in disadvantaged groups
BUT…no explicit disadvantaging process in the model
Organizational Dynamics

23. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECTS
Inductive Control
More often used in higher-status an smaller families
Persuasive methods that seek child’s voluntary compliance
Based on explanation & reasoning, not coercion
Remember back to the Lareau article!

24. BUT…
Wisconsin Model more effective in explaining the attainments of
white men than African-American men or white women.
!
Why would it differ based on race & gender?

25. NATUREVS. NURTURE?
What’s the basis of ability?
!
Intelligence?
Hard work?
Upbringing?

26. GENETICS?
“Genetic”≠“deterministic.”
What does heritability mean?
“Intelligence is 70% genes,
30% environment” doesn’t
make sense.
Contribution of
environment and genes
always varies based on the
context.

27. NATUREVS. NURTURE
Society in which ALL people are genetically identical
All differences MUST be caused by the environment
Society in which ALL people live in the same environment
All differences MUST because by genes
The contribution of genes is dependent on the contribution
of the environment, and vice versa.

28. NATUREVS. NURTURE
Degree of influence of genes on intelligence
!
No genetic influence at low SES
!
Substantial genetic influence at high SES
Turkheimer et al., 2003

29. NATUREVS. NURTURE
Degree of influence of genes on intelligence
!
No genetic influence at low SES
!
Substantial genetic influence at high SES
Turkheimer et al., 2003

30. NATUREVS. NURTURE
Degree of influence of genes on intelligence
!
No genetic influence at low SES
!
Substantial genetic influence at high SES
Turkheimer et al., 2003

31. NATUREVS. NURTURE
Degree of influence of
environment on
intelligence
!
Strong environmental
influence at low SES
!
Substantial genetic
influence at high SES
Turkheimer et al., 2003

32. NATUREVS. NURTURE
Degree of influence of
environment on
intelligence
!
Strong environmental
influence at low SES
!
Substantial genetic
influence at high SES
Turkheimer et al., 2003

33. NATUREVS. NURTURE
Degree of influence of
environment on
intelligence
!
Strong environmental
influence at low SES
!
Weak environmental
influence at high SES
Turkheimer et al., 2003

34. NATURETHROUGH NURTURE
Gene expression dependent on environment
Same Genes + Different Environments → Different Outcomes
Gene expression only occurs in the presence of environmental
stimulation

36. OTHER ISSUES WITH
STATUS ATTAINMENT MODELS
Horan (1978)
“Status attainment rests on a functionalist conception of social structure in
which social positions are conceived of as levels of performance which are
differentially evaluated and rewarded within a competitive market situation…
…the assumption of fully open and competitive allocation of individuals to jobs
(i.e., market homogeneity) provides a source of justification for restricting
attention to the individual characteristics of jobholders.”

37. OTHER ISSUES WITH
STATUS ATTAINMENT MODELS
Is it really about motivation?
!
Initial Assumption: The association between adolescent ambition & later
achievement is an indication that the motivation to excel affects achievement.
Alternative Explanation: People recognize probable outcomes for themselves
given what they know about societal constraints on social mobility, and people who
know they have a low likelihood of moving “up the ladder” are more likely to say
they expect to achieve less. (Measure is of what you expect, not what you want.)

38. OTHER ISSUES WITH
STATUS ATTAINMENT MODELS
Evidence
1. The higher the SES of the student body, the higher a student’s
goals and levels of educational attainment.
BUT…
2.The higher the average ability level of the student body, the lower
the goals and levels of educational attainment.

39. BACKTOTRACKING ISSUES…
Entwisle & Hayduk (1988)
!
“Not only does a high level of performance in one year facilitate a high
level in the next, but a ‘paper person’ is created that follows the child
from grade to grade. Cumulative records that follow children through
school could support the children’s high [or low] performance in the later
grades by affecting subsequent teachers’ expectations.”