Education, stratification, and the academic hierarchy

EDUCATION, STRATIFICATION, AND THE ACADEMIC HIERARCHY

Dwight Lang

Some view the academic hierarchy as an essential meritocratic structure that rewards students who have greater natural abilities. Others suggest that this structure reflects specific status divisions. Using nationally representative data, this study considers the relative and independent influence of students' undergraduate achievement, sociaJ class, sex, and race on rank of graduate school they attend. Analysis of covariance techniques indicate that undergradüate achievement is the strongest predictor of tank of graduate institution attended, in all six sub-areas examined. All of the status variables also have independent effects. In several sub-areas the graduate academic hierarchy does not universally reward social class, sex, and face groups for equal levels of achievement. Other sex and race groups, with equal achievement leve{s, attend similarly ranked graduate institutions.

~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ * * * ~ ° " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

, ° * ù * ù ù , ° ° . ° ° * ° o ° . ù * ° * * ° * . ù o ù ù , ° ù ù * * ù ù ° ù ù ù ~ . . ° ° ° ù ù ° * , ù ù ° , ° « * * ~ * ° * ° ° ° * ° ° * ° o = ° ù = o ù , o * ° ù * * o ° °

The study of status inequality in higher education has been an important area of investigation since the mid-1960s (Clark, 1973). During the following 10 years many analysts fclt that inequality in higher education was being successfully eliminated (Kerr, 1978; Trow, 1975) as a direct result of expanded nonwhite, female, and lower and working class participation (Car- negie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education, 1980; Feldman, 1974; Kerr, 1978; Solmon, 1976; Trow, 1972, 1975), Other observers have identified a persistence of inequality within institutions of higher education. Despite increased enrollments, an "academic hierarchy" with various levels of ranking and prestige has maintained traditional forms of educational inequality (Collins, 1979; Hearn, 1984; Karabel, 1972; Karabel and Astin, 1975).

Well-developed status hierarchies are considered an integral part of complex institutions in modern industrial societies (Green, 1981; Lewis, 1979; Wolfle, 1983). Some have even posited that social stratification is a universal

Dwight Lang, Department of Sociology, University of Oregon. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 53rd Annual Meetings of the Pacific

Sociological Association, 1982, in San Diego, and is part of a lärger study (Lang, 1983).

Research in Higher Education © Agathon Press, Inc. Vol. 21, No. 3, 1984

329

330 LANG

necessity (Davis and Moore, 1945). Stratification is perceived not only as the most rational method of organizing a society, but also as the most useful technique of rewarding the ablest and the most deserving. It comes as no sur- prise that higher education has maintained its own well-developed stratification system with various levels of prestige and ranking at the undergraduate and graduate levels.

Some view this well-developed academic hierarchy as a just and necessary meritocratic structure that appropriately prepares and trains the nation's intellectual talent (Kerr, 1978; Parsons and Platt, 1973; Trow, 1976). Others indicate that the academic hierarchy establishes and promotes specific status distinctions (Darknell, 1982; Jencks and Riesman, 1968; Karabel and Astin, 1975), creating a structure that fails to utilize a nation's full spectrum of talent (Clark, 1962; Husen, 1976). The present research examines the allocation of social class, sex, and race groups within the academic hierarchy and explores related complexities that are integral components of such an examination. Two nationwide surveys, conducted in 1969 and 1975, are used to examine the merit and status composition of differentially ranked graduate schools.

MERIT AND STATUS INEQUALITY IN THE ACADEMIC HIERARCHY

The merit explanation of inequality in the academic hierarchy has received specific attention in the literature (Astin, 1977; Folger et al., 1970). Academic ability, as measured by undergraduate performance and achievement tests, has a key influence on rank or "quality" of the graduate institution students attend (Astin, 1977; Jencks and Reisman, 1968;'Lang, in press, a, b; Parsons and Platt, 1973; Spaeth, 1968). Selective and highly selective graduate institutions often attract the above average undergraduate performer, while the less selective schools admit the average and below average college graduate. In this research we expect that students with high undergraduate grade point averages (achievement) will attend higher ranked graduate schools than students with lower undergraduate grade point averages, regardless of their social class, sex, or race.

Status inequality in the academic hierarchy (Hearn, 1984; Karabel and Astin, 1975) and within institutions of higher education (Jencks and Ries- man, 1968) can be partially linked to a long-standing concern with social class relations in the United States (Davis, 1964, 1965; Goldstein, 1974; Richer, 1974; West, 1961). Even though the evidence is somewhat limited and dated, available research utilizing nationwide data indicates that social class inde- pendently influences the rank of the graduate school attended (Crane, 1969; Jencks and Riesman, 1968; Lang, in press, a, b; Spaeth, 1968). The impact, however, appears less pronounced than at the undergraduate level (Milner,

ACADEMIC HIERARCHY 331

1972; Spaeth, 1968). In this research we identify specific social class differentials in placement within the graduate hierarchy. Upper-middle ctass students are predicted to attend higher ranked graduate schools than middte class students, and middle class students are predicted to attend higher ranked schools than working class students, independent of their sex, race, or undergraduate achievement.

The literature also identifies conditions of sex inequality within the academic hierarchy (Fitzpatrick, 1976; Gappa and Uehling, 1979; Solmon, 1973). While only a limited number of studies have closely examined the impact of sex on quatity of graduate school attended, rauch of the existing evidence suggests that women are more likely to be found in medium and lower ranked graduate institutions (Feldman, 1974; Harris, 1970; Lang, in press, a; Solmon, 1976), despite increased undergraduate enrollments (Centra, 1980) and higher grades earned as undergraduates (Harway and Astin, 1977). Contradictory findings indicate that in the 1960s and early 1970s it was not more difficult for women to be admitted to high quality graduate schools (Berelson, 1960; Folger et al., 1970; Lang, in press, b). Despite these apparent gains, we expect to find specific sex differentials regarding female location in the graduate hierarchy. Women are predicted to attend lower ranked graduate schools than men, regardless of their social ctass, face, and undergraduate achievement.

A final and important element of stratification in higher education relates to well-documented conditions of race inequality in colleges and universities (Brown and Stent, 1977) and within the academic hierarchy (Lang, in press, c). In spite of increased nonwhite participation in undergraduate and graduate education most studies show that racia• minorities have been and con- tinue to be enrolled at the lower ranked graduate institutions (Brown and Steht, 1977; Roizen, 1975; Watson, 1979), regardless of undergraduate achievement (English and Settle, 1976). It appears that only Asian American students have strong representation in prestigious graduate schoots (Brown and Steht, 1977). In this research we also expect to locate racial groups at different levels of the academic hierarchy. White students are predicted to attend higher ranked graduate schools than Asian students, and Asian students are predicted to attend higher ranked schools than other nonwhite students, regardless of social class, sex, and undergraduate achievement.

A secondary goal of the analysis is to examine the persistence of the effects of the independent variables on rank of graduate school attended in two degree areas and four liberal arts areas. These six sub-areas are types of programs located at all levels of the academic hierarchy, and we expect that the effects of the merit and status variables will be similar to the general relationships outlined above. Previous research also anticipates the changing impact of the independent variables between 1969 and 1975. Because of the influence of the retrenchment process (Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education, 1980; Kerr, 1978; Riesman, 1975) on equality of oppor-

332 LANG

tunity in higher education, the impact of social class, sex, and race may be greater in 1975 than in 1969. Retrenchment and related financial crises- which affect both institutions and s tudents-may have forced working class individuals, women, and nonwhites to attend lower ranked institutions by 1975. The impact of status variables may also be weaker in 1975 than in 1969. In recent years many elite graduate institutions have initiated affirmative action proposals to attract previously underrepresented groups (Gappa and Uehling, 1979). These programs may have enabled women and nonwhites to attend the more highly ranked institutions by 1975. Finally, as a result of increased selectivity on the part of high prestige institutions (Parsons and Platt, 1973), achievement may have a greater impact on placement in the graduate hierarchy in 1975. Higher undergraduate grade-point averages may have been required to gain admittance to highly ranked graduate schools in 1975 than in 1969.

COMPARISONS WITH OTHER STUDIES

This research expands on earlier and present work in several ways. First, nationally representative data are utilized. Second, the influence of three theoreticaUy important status variables and one merit variable on participation of college graduates in graduate schools of different ranks is considered. Previous work has tended to concentrate on rank and prestige in the undergraduate setting (Hearn, 1984; Karabel and Astin, 1975; Medsker and Trent, 1972) and has not considered the interaction of status and merit variables at the graduate level (Folger et al., 1970). Third, to examine the persistence of the effects of the status and merit variables, the relationships in two degree and four liberal arts areas are considered. No other study has examined these six sub-areas of postgraduate education. Fourth, this research considers how these relationships have changed between 1969 and 1975. The year 1969 is a key one because it closely parallels the end of a significant growth period in higher education and the beginning of a phase of retrenchment in state and national systems of higher education (Riesman, 1975). The year 1975 represents the period immediately following the initial phase of retrenchment. Any significant changes in the composition of the graduate hierarchy from 1969 to 1975 may represent retrenchment conditions indica- tive of the changing composition of graduate schools in the 1980s.

METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSlS

Data gathered in two large nationwide surveys of graduate students conducted in 1969 and 1975 by the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education are used to examine the research problem. Technical reports that discuss the


sample design, questionnaire, and response rates are available in Trow (1975) and Roizen et al. (1978). The 1969 sample contains 158 institutions and 32,963 respondents, while the 1975 sample contains 199 institutions and 21,851 respondents. Low response rates from black, Native American, and private institutions, as weil as undersampling of lower ranked institutions necessi- tated the use of weighting procedures. (The weighting variable developed by the survey staff is discussed below.)

Measures of the independent variables are available in both surveys. The sex of each respondent is requested and race is coded into three categories: white, Asian American, and other nonwhite. The achievement of each respondent is measured by self-reported undergraduate grade point averages (ranging from 2.00 or less to 4.00). 5 Three different social elass levels are based on three variables available in each survey: occupation of the father and education of the mother and father. The soeial class of the respondents is measured using a three category variable: upper middle class, middle class, working class. 3

A measure of the dependent variable graduate-school rank has been developed by Trow (1975). The tank of each school ranges from one through six. These six categories are: (1) high-, (2) medium-, and (3) low-ranked Ph.Dù and professional-degree-granting universities; and (4) high-, (5) medium-, and (6) low-ranked four-year colleges granting toasters and professional, hut not Ph.D. degrees. This variable is ordinally measured, but commonly treated as interval and is divided into the above six groups on the basis of published information. In the case of universities The Gourman Report (1967) is used; in the case of four-year colleges both The Gourman Report (1967) and the College-Rater (1967) are utilized. Descriptions of the development of these rankings are available in Trow (1975) and Roizen et al. (1978). 4

The relative influence of the independent variables on rank of graduate school attended is examined using analysis of covariance and dummy variable regression techniques (Blalock, 1972; Kerlinger and Pedhazur, 1973). The analyses include examining the interactive effects of all the independent variables. Resulting unstandardized regression coefficients represent the increase in tank by unit change in an independent variable. Separate analyses are conducted with two degree areas and four liberal arts areas: students in Ph.D. and M.A. programs; humanities and fine arts; physical sciences and math; social sciences; and biological sciences.» In additional analyses, year of the study is added as a dummy variable to test the significance of change over time.

Care is taken to assure maximum comparability of results in the 1969 and 1975 Carnegie surveys. First, both surveys are large and representative samples of graduate students in all institutions of higher education in the United States. Each sample, then, has the same universe. Second, the survey samples

334 LANG

are independent of each other and are replicated within a six year period. Third, a weighting variable that adjusts for differential response rates and sampling bias improves the comparability of the effects within and between the two surveys. Additional adjustments in the application of the weighting variable within each sub-area provide comparable numbers of respondents in each sub-area between the two years and maintain the numbers of respondents near or below 1,000. The adjustments do not alter the regression coefficients attached to the independent variables, but they do allow for maximum comparability of effects between sub-areas without exceeding a weighted sample number, which automatically makes all F-tests significant. The unstandardized regression coefficients for social class, sex, race, and achievement, then, are generally comparable both within each year and between the two years.

R ES U LTS

Between 4°70 and 22°70 of the total variation in the rank of graduate institutions which students attend in 1969 is explained by social class, sex, race, and undergraduate grade point average (achievement). (See Table 1.) 6 The most variation is explained in the social sciences and physical sciences and math. Interactions between each of the independent variables are tested for, but none are found to be significant.

For students in M.A. programs and humanities and fine arts, achievement, social class, sex, and race all have significant independent effects on rank of institution attended. Achievement influences placement in the graduate hierarchy with predicted shifts of .68 and 1.09 in rank of the graduate school students attend for each unit shift in undergraduate grade point average, holding constant the effects of the status variables. Upper middle class students are predicted to attend .81 and .54 higher ranked schools than the working class students', while the middle class has a .46 and .24 of a rank advantage over the working class. The influence of gender indicates that men have a .41 and .62 advantage over women, controlling for the effects of achievement, social class, and race. The effects of race are in an unexpected direction. Other nonwhites are predicted to attend .26 and .10 of a rank higher than whites, and Asian Americans have a moderate advantage over nonwhites in M.A. programs (b = - .23) and nearly a full rank advantage in the humanities and fine arts (b = - .91)J

In the remaining four sub-areas, the impact of achievement is similar to that present in the above two sub-areas. Social class advantages persist in the physical sciences and math and are similar, but even larger, in the social sciences. Varying class patterns, however, occur in the remaining two liberal arts areas. In the biological sciences, the three social class groups attend

ACADEMEC HIERARCHY 335

similarly rankèd schools. In Ph.D. programs upper-rniddle-class advantage persists, but working class students unexpectedly have a srnall advantage over the middle class (b= + .10). Male graduate students have ä predicted advantage in the physical sciences and math (b = - .47), as well as the social sciences (b = - .64). Men and wornen, however, artend similarly ranked Ph.D. and biological science prograrns. Finally, for students in Ph.D. programs, physical sciences and rnath, sociat sciences, and biological sciences, race inequality does not persist, and we observe the three racial groups attending similarly ranked schools.

Table 2 shows that between 4°70 and 12070 of the total variation in rank of institution that students attend in 1975 is explained by the status and achievement variables. In a six-year period total explained variation declines .14 in the social sciences, declines very little in the hurnanities and fine arts, physical sciences and math, and biological sciences, and rernains the same in Ph.D. and M.A. prograrns. 8 As in 1969, there are no significant interacfions between the independent variables.

When the 1969 and 1975 results are examined, cornparative analyses of significant effects show that coefficients are not significantly different in the six year period. The irnpact of status and merit variables on placement in the graduate academic hierarchy did not change, indicating no radJcal transformation of status or mefit inequality within differently ranked schools. In one instance, however, a significant change is observed in the six year period. By 1975 upper-rniddle-class advantage over the working class has been re- duced in the social sciences ( - 1.02 to - .53), while middle and working class students are attending more-sirnilarly ranked institutions. In three instances the effects of a variable also change between 1969 and 1975. In the biological sciences the three social class groups artend sirnilarly ranked schools in 1969, hut by 1975 the typical patterns of class advantage have emerged (upper- middle-class advantage over the rniddle class and rniddle-class advantage over the working class), in spite of the strong effects of achievernent in both years. The sex inequality in the humanities and fine arts and social sciences observed in 1969 disappears by 1975, creafing unexpected conditions of sex equality in placement within the graduate hierarchy. While not characteristic of all areas examined, these are irnportant gains in an era of retrenchrnent, particularly for wornen seeking entry into academic and professional realms.

The curnulative effects of the independent variables in 1969 and 1975 provide a useful surnmary of conditions of inequality in the acadernic hierarchy and translate into specific advantages for high achieving students of different status groupings (assurning that undergraduate grade point average is 4.00). (See Tables 3 and 4.) 9 In 1969, upper-middte-class males, a group with the greatest advantage in the graduate hierarchy, are generally predicted to attend the highest ranked schools. Within this group, as weil as the rernain-

m

ù~

ù~

ù~

0

0

.=

° ~

m

.,,]

<

ù~

0

ù~

ùn.,~

d ù.:

• °

I I I

I I I

*

. ° °

I I I

I + ~ +

~~~

• o

I I

ù ~ + +

+ + ~ - ~

+ I

+ I

0 t-ù~ r..~ 0 ,"« ¢'~

ù ù.~ + +

t '~ v

336

C-- i..,

I , , , 4 ~

0"~ 0 o

I "-"

#.-.

I v 4 ~

#.-. -x-

0", ~q

~ ~.. ~ ~ •

I , ,~

I c 4 ' ~

~ . . E

~ d

E ~ o * õ

1 .

E

~ E

~ o

£ < o q

~ ~ 0 0

337

@

== @

ù~

@

==

[.=

==

i i f

oo

I I I

i I ~ I ~

÷ +

¢'~ «'~ L"-,-

, t -

• o

+ -t-

«.

-t- -t-

+ I

÷ ÷ ,-..--

3 3 8

g,

g- «.

J ~ d r ' - •

g-

g-

g-

g-

V

~ ~ . ~ . ~ . ~ - ~

339

340 LANG

TABLE 3. Graduate School Rank of Social Ciass, Sex, and Race Groups with High Achievernent a (1969)

Male Female

Weighted Asian Other Asian Other N White American Nonwhite White American Nonwhite

UpperMidd~ Class A 435 1.7 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.8 1.6 B 1,272 2.4 1.9 2.1 2.8 2.3 2.5 C 1,245 1.8 1.0 1.7 2.4 1.4 2.3 D 673 1.7 2.1 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.1 E 794 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.9 1.8 1.6 F 354 1.7 1.6 1.8 1.9 1.7 2.0

MiddleClass A 435 2.0 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.0 B 1,272 2.7 2.2 2.5 3.1 2.7 2.9 C 1,245 2.1 1.1 2.0 2.7 1.7 2.6 D 673 2.0 2.4 1.9 2.4 2.8 2.4 E 794 1.5 1.3 1.2 2.1 1.9 1.8 F 354 1.8 1.6 1.9 1.9 1.7 2.0

WorkmgClass A 435 1.9 2.1 1.9 1.9 2.0 1.9 B 1,272 3.2 2.7 2.9 3.6 3.1 3.3 C 1,245 2.4 1.3 2.3 3.0 2.0 2.9 D 673 2.4 2.8 2.3 2.8 3.2 2.8 E 794 2.3 2.1 2.0 3.0 2.8 2.7 F 354 1.9 1.7 2.0 2.0 1.9 2.1

aFor students who have a 4.00 undergraduate grade point average; graduate school ranks: 1 (highest) to 6 (lowest). Note: Student program affiliation: A: Ph.D. D" Physical Science and Math B: M.A. E: Social Science C: Humanities and Fine Arts F: Biological Science

ing c lass /sex groups, nonwhi tes have a small bu t d is t inct advan tage over whites. Middle-c lass males a t t end the next-highest ranked schools, closely fol lowed by upper -middle -c lass females. Work ing class males have a slight advan tage over midd le class women, comple t ing a t rend o f middle- and working-c lass male advan tage over females o f the next highest social class. High-achieving working-class women are loca ted at the lowest ranked inst i tu- t ions, of ten a full r ank lower than high-achieving uppe r -midd le class males. By 1975, upper -midd le -c lass males cont inue to have the greatest advantage.

ACADEMlC HIERARCHY 341

TABLE 4. Graduate School Rank of Social Class, Sex, and Race Groups with High Aehievement « (1975)

Male Female

Weighted Asian Other Asian Other N White American Nonwhite White Amefican Nonwhite

UpperMiddleClass A 336 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.9 1.9 1.8 B 1,271 2.9 2.2 2.5 3.2 2.5 2.8 C 1,250 2.4 2.1 1.5 2.6 2.3 1.7 D 575 1.7 1.6 1.5 2.2 2.2 2.1 E 738 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.2 2.4 F 313 1.8 1.9 1.6 2.1 2.2 2.0

MiddleClass A 336 1.9 1.9 1.8 2.0 2.0 1.9 B 1,271 3.4 2.7 3.0 3.7 3.0 3.3 C 1,250 2.9 2.6 2.0 3.0 2.7 2.1 D 575 2.1 2.1 1.9 2.7 2.7 2.5 E 738 2.7 2.4 2.6 2.8 2.6 2.8 F 313 2.1 2.2 1.9 2.4 2.5 2.3

Wo~mgClass A 336 2.0 2.0 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.0 B 1,271 3.8 3.1 3.4 4.1 3A 3.7 C 1,250 3.4 3.i 2.5 3.5 3.2 2.6 D 575 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.9 2.9 2.8 E 738 2.8 2.6 2.8 3.0 2.7 3.0 F 313 2.5 2.6 2.3 2.8 2.9 2.6

aFor students who have a 4.00 undergraduate grade point 1 (highest) to 6 (lowest). Note: Student program affiliation: A: Ph.D. D: Physical Science and B: M.A. E: Social Science C: Humanities and Fine Arts F: Biological Science

average; graduate school ranks:

Math

Upper -midd le -c l a s s females, however, develop a slight advan tage over middle class males. Midd l e class males a t t end higher r anked schools than their female counterpar ts , while middle class females a t tend slightly h igher ranked schools t han work ing class maies. Work ing class females, as in 1969, a t tend the lowest r anked inst i tut ions. In 1975, pa t te rns o f inequa l i ty have changed, ind ica t ing dis t inct but modes t social class advantages . Nonwhi tes also con- t inue to a t t end sl ightly h igher r anked schools than whites with s imi lar social class backgrounds .

342 LANG

A further examination of Tables 3 and 4 clearly displays the hierarchy of advantage for all high achieving status groups. In both 1969 and 1975, upper- middle-class students generally attend higher ranked schools than the middle class, while middle class students have a distinct advantage over the working class. When comparing the sexes, within each social class group, during both years, men attend higher ranked schools than women. In many between- social-class comparisons, however, men attend similar or lower ranked schools than women of the next highest class group, reflecting the persistence of social class differences. Finally, within each social class group, Asian Ameri- cans and other nonwhites attend higher ranked schools than whites.

DISCUSSION

This research identifies a continuing and subtle inequality which lies submerged within institutions of higher education. An academic hierarchy pre- sents a complex structure of prestige and status which has substantial effects on social class, gender and racial groups enrolled in graduate programs.

The findings indicate strong support for an academic hierarchy based on merit. Undergraduate grade point average (achievement) has a strong and consistent independent influence on rank of school attended by graduate students in both 1969 and 1975. Higher social status (being upper-middle class, male, or white), along with the associated financial and social privi- leges, does not appear to automatically assure placement or easy movement into the most prestigious schools. Students must also achieve academically and "earn" their position within the graduate hierarchy. These findings tend to support previous research on the relationship between merit and the structure of the academic hierarchy (Astin, 1977; Jencks and Riesman, 1968; Hearn, 1984; Karabel and Astin, 1975; Parsons and Platt 1973; Spaeth, 1968).

Because each of the status variables also has independent main effects on the rank of graduate school which students attend, a strict meritocratic position can be called into question. The distribution of individuals to different ranked schools is also related to their social class, gender, and racial background. Regardless of undergraduate achievement, this inequality bestows upon certain groups and classes moderate advantages in participation within the academic hierarchy.

The effects of social class are consistent in both 1969 and 1975. In 1969 these class advantages are present in five of the six sub-areas examined. We do see, however, that working class Ph.D. students are attending slightly higher-ranked sehools than the middle class, and students of the three elass groups attend similarly ranked schools in the biological sciences. By 1975 typical class advantages emerge in all sub-areas. The logic of a meritocracy can be applied to students of all class groups, but the independent effects


of achievement and social class generally show that not all social class groups have the same opportunity to attend the highest ranked graduate schools. 10 These class advantages are stronger in M.A. and social science programs in 1969, and M.A. and humanities and fine arts programs in 1975. In addition to the important effects of undergraduate achievement, therefore, we also see that the structure of the academic hierarchy reflects a degree of social class inequalib:

These restricted opportunities may result from three related components: financial constraints, personal choice, and location in the undergraduate hierarchy. First, some working and middle class students may not be able to afford the direct and indirect expenses of attending elite, expensive, and pre- dominantly upper-middle-class graduate institutions. This may be particularly crucial for students in M.A., social science, and humanities and fine arts programs where financial support may be more limited (fewer teaching and research assistantships, etc.) than in the natural sciences. Second, working class students often have close family ties (Milner, 1972) and may be less willing to be mobile in pursuit of the most prestigious graduate school. As a result, some working class students may choose to attend a lower ranked institution located closer to family members, eren though they may be objectively qualified to attend a higher ranked schooL These students may prefer to be affiliated with a social and educational milieu more socially compati- ble with their own interests and perspectives and where a larger proportion of the faculty have similar social class backgrounds. (See Lipset and Ladd, 1979, for a description of the social class composition of faculties at different ranked schools.) Third, the well-documented tendency for lower and working class students to be concentrated in the less prestigious undergraduate institutions (Ctark, 1960; Hearn, 1984; Karabet and Astin~ 1975; Pincus, I980), the greater intrinsic value of elite undergraduate credentials, and the attrac- tion of high socioeconomic groups to these prestigious schools (Jencks and Riesman, 1968) might explain the reproduction of social class inequality at the graduate levels.

In 1969 important sex inequalities also emerge within the griduate hierarchy. Not only do men attend higher ranked schools in the M.A. degree area and three of the liberal arts areas, but this male advantage appears stronger in two of the groups: social sciences and humanities and fine arts. In 1975 the tendency for men to attend the most prestigious institutions persists only for M.A. and physical sciences and math students. Because of the independent effects of achievement and gender, men and women, in a number of sub-areas in both 1969 and 1975, do not appear to have the same opportunity to attend the highest ranked graduate schools. Men with high undergraduate grade point averages can e×pect to attend the highest ranked institutions, thus making a meritocratic argument valid for male students.

344 LANG

A meritocracy can also be applied to women: high achieving women can expect to attend higher ranked graduate schools than low achieving women. But high achievement for women does not indicate placement at the same ranked graduate institutions as high achieving males. 11 In both years we also observe men and women attending similarly ranked schools, particularly in Ph.D. programs and the biological sciences. And by 1975 sex inequality present in the humanities and fine arts and the social sciences disappears. These findings suggest an application of meritocratic conditions for both men and women, in addition to persistent manifestations of sex inequality.

Financial considerations and personal choice might help to explain the observed sex inequality. Families may be more willing to invest in a son's rather than a daughter's college education (Harway and Astin, 1977), espe- ciaUy in a depressed economy (Stockard et al., 1980). If a daughter does enroll in a college she may attend a less prestigious undergraduate institution, even though she may be objectively qualified to artend higher ranked institutions. Women who are married and/or who have children may also choose to remain in their current place of residence and attend nearby schools to maintain continuity in the family environment. FinaUy, regarding specific areas of study, limited resources (fewer assistantships, etc.) may have contributed to strong female disadvantage in M.A., social science, and humanities and fine arts programs. The strong male advantage in physical sciences and math may be related to male concentration in (Astin, 1969) and greater financial support for the natural sciences and math.

The expanded opportunities for women within the graduate academic hierarchy, particularly by 1975, is unexpected during an era of retrenchment. Effective affirmative action programs and changing perceptions concerning the appropriate role and position of women in educational and occupational structures may have provided new opportunities for female college graduates. More importantly, a new understanding by women of their capabilities and rights may have contributed to expanded conditions of sex equality.

An examination of rate inequality unexpectedly reveals that either whites and nonwhites (Asian Americans and other nonwhites) attend similarly ranked graduate schools, or nonwhites attend higher ranked schools. This represents a significant gain for nonwhite college graduates within a graduate structure traditionally dominated by the white majority. In both 1969 and 1975 we see that the racial groups are generally located at different levels of the graduate hierarchy on the basis of public indicators of merit and not discriminatory race distinctions. Students in M.A. programs and the humanities and fine arts, however, do not attend similarly ranked institutions, again reflecting varying levels of financial support. Because of these independent effects of achievement and race, a differential opportunity structure emerges in which some high achieving whites can expect to attend lower ranked grad-


uate schools than high achieving nonwhites. 12 In a limited sense, the academic hierarchy blocks representative white participation within a meritocratic structure. These findings can be interpreted in several ways.

Increased financial aid for nonwhite students (Baird, 1976) and perhaps the ease with which upper-middle-class nonwhites can integrate into an elite academic environment may have contributed to the observed mce similarities and the nonwhite advantage. These conditions might also be linked to effective affirmative action efforts at elite institutions, as weil as a growing Civil Rights Movement which had a strong effect on how nonwhites perceive their appropriate role and position. This growing nonwhite consciousness is re- flected in increased undergraduate enrollments in the late 1960s and early 1970s (Brown and Stent, 1977; Lopez et al., 1976) which maintained a large pool of potential nonwhite graduate students. These students apparently gravitated to elite, heavily endowed graduate institutions that offered pros- pects for higher status employment, expanded earning potential, and appropriate educational credentials to match occupational aspirations.

The above results indicate that the achievement and status variables do not significantly interact in ways that put certain sub-groups (working c]ass, nonwhites, etc.) at a unique disadvantage. A central reason emerges as a possible explanation. The students in both surveys constitute a fairly elite group. Most are higher-than-average achievers, have probably attended higher mnked undergraduate institutions than nongraduate students, and have been accepted into graduate school. Because of the unique nature of this group, the double and triple disadvantages often experienced by status groups at the undergraduate level did not develop as important conditions for students at the postgraduate level.

Additional comparisons of the 1969 and 1975 results also reveal that the influence of the independent variables does not significantly change in ways earlier predicted. A number of structural conditions and/or constraints may be responsible. Contrary to expectations, higher undergraduate achievement is not required to gain admittance to highly ranked graduate schools in 1975 than in 1969, revealing that increased selectivity by elite institutions did not emerge as a result of the retrenchment process. Grade inflation may have led many graduate institutions to devalue grade point average as a meaningful criteria for admission. Aptitude and achievement tests, as well as the critical letter of recommendation, may have been more heavily relied on by the mid- 1970s. We also see that social class differentials did not become more acute as a result of retrenchment. Working class individuals, then, are not attending significantly lower ranked institutions by 1975. Institutional and financial crises, the financial difficulties traditionally experienced by lower socioeconomic status students, and the declining social value of a college educädon do not appear to have increased social class inequality within the academic

346 LANG

hierarchy. In addition, the tendency for some lower socioeconomic status students to attend and graduate from higher ranked undergraduate institutions and the similar achievement levels of students from various social class groups might help to explain why class differentials did not increase between 1969 and 1975. Sex and race differentials within the academic hierarchy also did not become more acute in the six year period. Academic retrenchment does not appear to have caused female and nonwhite students to attend relatively lower ranked graduate institutions by 1975. This maintenance of position within the hierarchy might be linked to effective affirmative action initia- tives, combined with increased undergraduate enrollments in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In addition, the persistent and higher achievement levels of female and nonwhite undergraduates might have enabled them to successfully compete with men and whites in the admissions process. Finally, larger numbers of women and nonwhites actually seeking entrance into graduate school by 1975 may have had a positive influence on how they are evaluated within those programs.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this research suggest that undergraduate achievement is the primary determinant of rank of graduate school students attend. Social class and gender also play an important but moderate role in determining the structure of the graduate academic hierarchy. Despite increased enrollments and expanded participation of previously underrepresented groups, an image of status inequality does emerge to partiaUy question meritocratic conditions often assumed to be the only identifying factors of the academic hierarchy. A strict meritocratic argument is further weakened when high- achieving working-class students and some high-achieving women are apparently unable to attend highly ranked graduate schools. Social class and gender distinctions often found in undergraduate institutions also appear in the graduate academic hierarchy, creating an opportunity structure that may be unable to utilize effectively a nation's diverse pool of talent. Meritocratic conditions, however, can be applied to gender and racial groups enrolled in several degree and liberal arts areas during 1969 and especially 1975. Men and women-as weil as whites and nonwhites-with equal achievement levels, attend similarly ranked graduate schools. This combined with some evidence of nonwhite advantage within the graduate hierarchy may signal new and expanded opportunities for those women and nonwhites who have attended institutions of higher education.

Acknowledgments. I would like to thank Alexander W. Astin, Echo Fields, Sylvia Wanner Lang, Seymour Martin Lipset, Robert M. O'Brien, and Jean Stockard for comments and helpful suggestions.


The da ta utilized in this article were made available, in par t , by the Inter-university Consor t ium for Polit ical and Social Science Research, A n n Arbor , Michigan and were originally collected by Mar t in Trow et al. for the Carnegie Commiss ion Na- t ional Survey of Higher Educa t ion : Gradua t e Study, 1969. The views and interpreta- t ions are mine and do not necessarily reflect the views of the or iginal collectors or

organizaf ions listed above.

NOTES

1. In this research achievement is defined as undergraduate grade point average. This widely used indicator cannot be considered a comprehensive measure of academic ability, but it is orte key factor influencing educational opportunities (Jencks and Riesman, 1968). Other common indicators of ability include achievement and aptitude tests, as weil as letters of recommendation. Undergraduate grade point average is also the only measure of aehievement or ability contained in the surveys utilized in this research. (See the Methodology and Analysis section for a description of the surveys.)

2. Undergraduate grade point average represents four years of sustained academic work in curriculums designed as preparatory mechanisms for graduate training. As such, grades can be viewed as one acceptable measure of achievement because decisions based on them can be publically justified in a mefitocratic selection process (Riesman, 1973). One major drawback in using undergraduate grade point average to assess student achievement is the lack of uniformity in grading standards across institutions (Blackburn and Legenfelter, 1973, as reported in Lawrence and Green, 1980). But beeäuse undergraduate grade point average is offen used as an important factor in graduate admissions (Jencks and Riesman, 1968), regardless of the origin of the bachelor's degree, it serves as an appropriate measure of achievement in these surveys.

3. The decision to use categorical rather than a continuous measure for the class variable is based on theoretieal concerns regarding the position and definition of the social e•asses within the academie hierarchy in American society. Students from the three social class groups are considered to have separately identifiable college experiences and to maintain distinctly different positions in the institutional structureo Studies that identify specific social class divisions are relatively common in the literature. The father's occupafion and edueation are usually key faetors that define a family's social status (Blau and Duncan, 1967; Collins, 1979). Because of the mother's role as primary socializer and the influen«e this role has on educational and career aspirations of children, the educafion of the mother is also considered a primary determinant of status background (Sewell, 1971; Wright and Wright, 1976). Studies have recognized the interdependence of these three variables in affeeting social class position (Kohn, 1969; Sewetl, 1971; Wright and Wright, 1976). See Lang (1983) for details of how the social class variable is constructed.

4o There appears to be one central problem associated with the measure of graduate rank. The measure cannot identify the extent to which students äre either attracted to a school because of the status and prestige of the insfitution or because individual departments, which specialize in specific areas, are highly ranked. As Trow (1975) indicates, however, the institutional and departmental ratings are highly correlated (+ .99) in The Gourman Report (1967). Also, the central task of this research is to determine p!acement within the institutional hierarchy, and not the departmental hierarchy. This departmental ranking might be described as an independent structure submerged within the wider academic hierarchy.

5. These analyses focus on students in degree and liberal arts areas and do not consider all students surveyed in 1969 and 1975. Students attending public and private institufions, uni-

348 LANG

versities and colleges, those enrolled in professional areas (law, medicine, etc.), and students in the total group (degree and professional students) are examined in other work (Lang, 1984, in press, a, b).

6. The problem of multicollinearity (Gordon, 1968) does not appear to be present in this analysis. Intercorrelations of the independent variables in both 1969 and 1975 never rose above .20 and were usually less than .10. Because of the number of correlation matrices (six in both 1969 and 1975) generated by the analysis, they have not been included here, but are avallable from the author.

7. Other analyses that examine simple white/nonwhite differences in placement at different ranked schools reveal an overall nonwhite advantage in the M.A. degree area (Lang, 1983). These race differences, in 1969 and 1975, are explained in the present research by showing that both Asian Americans and other nonwhites attend higher ranked institutions than whites. (See Tables 3 and 4.)

8. It has been suggested that standardized measures, such as R2, should not be compared across groups (Kim and Mueller, 1976). Others, however, recognize the comparability of standardized measures, suggesting that broader theoretical issues must be considered in examining causal processes across populations (Hargens, 1976). It should also be remem- bered that the samples in the 1969 and 1975 Carnegie surveys have comparable universes (graduate and professional students), but are examined over a six-year time period. Of par- ticular theoretical importance is the possible changing merit and status effects in an era of retrenchment.

9. A 4.00 undergraduate grade point average is used to identify patterns of inequality, even among the highest achieving graduate students. Identical patterns persist for students at each lower achievement level (3.00 and 2.00 UGPA) and can easily be derived by substitut- ing desired undergraduate grade point averages in the regression equations. (See Tables 1 and 2.) These students would also attend appropriately lower-ranked schools. Tables 3 and 4 can be utilized as a reference point for general patterns of inequality and adjustments can be made, depending on the magnitude and significance of the effects, for each of the status variables. If, for example, the effects of an independent variable are not significant it can be assumed that members of a status group attend similarly ranked schools.

10. Working class students are more often located at lower ranked undergraduate institutions (Alba and Lavin, 1981; Karabel, 1972; Templin and Shearon, 1980). In this research, therefore, high achieving working class students may attend lower ranked graduate institutions as a direct result of their location in the undergraduate hierarchy. Additional information provided in the 1969 survey allows us to determine if high achieving, working class students are more likely to have attended lower-ranked undergraduate institutions than middle- and upper-middle-class high achievers.

The 1969 survey requested that students identify the undergraduate institution attended. Forty-five percent responded in a way that the school could be identified and a fairly com- plete ranking of undergraduate institutions was developed. Schools were initially identified as either universities (Ranks 1-3) or colleges (Ranks 4-6) and then ranked by quality and type within those categories. (See Roizen et al. (1978) for a description of these undergraduate rankings.) This procedure meant that the variable was not strictly used as a single dimension variable and could not be utilized as art intervally measured variable in the present research. The ratings have also been described as unreplicable and tend to reveal a bias toward large institutions (Lawrence and Green, 1980). Private, liberal arts colleges, which offer high quality undergraduate instruction, also tend to be located at level four (4) of the six-level ranking. In spite of these problems, the ranking scheme does allow us to examine the class and achievement background of students who attended prestigious universities and colleges (Ranks 1, 2, and 4).


Crosstabulations of social class and undergraduate rank, partialling for achievement, reveal that in the two degree areas and three liberal arts areas where class advantages persist, high achieving, working class students are not strongly overrepresented in lower ranked undergraduate institutions. In general, high achieving, middle class students are also as likely to attend lower ranked undergraduate institutions as upper middle class, high achieving students, These trends indicate that the structure of the undergraduate hierarchy, in 1969, did not totally define the social class differentials observed at the graduate level.

11. The tendency of female undergraduates to artend lower ranked undergraduate institutions (Cross, 1974; Harway and Astin, 1977; Hearn, 1984) might partially explain the sex differentials observed for high achieving female graduate students. But crosstabulations of sex and undergraduate rank, partialling for achievement, show that high achieving females in M.A. programs and three of the liberal arts areas are not strongly overrepresented in lower ranked undergraduate institutions. These findings suggest, as they did for social class, that the structure of the undergraduate hierarchy did not absolutely define the sex differentials observed at the graduate level in 1969.

12. Crosstabulations of race and undergraduate rank, partiälling for achievement, indicate that high achieving nonwhites in M.A. programs and the humanities and fine arts (both Asian American and other nonwhite) rend to be located at higher ranked undergraduate institutions. This nonwhite undergraduate background, then, might be partiaUy responsible for this limited nonwhite graduate advantage present in 1969.

REFERENCES

Alba, R., and Lavin, D. Community colleges and tracking in higher educadon. Sociology of Education, 1981, 54, 223-237.

Astin, A. Four Critical Years. Sah Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1977.

Astin, H. The Womän Doctorate in America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1969.

Baird, L. Who goes to graduate schoot and how they get there. In J. Katz and R. T. Hartnet (Eds.), Scholars in the Making. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1976.

Berelson, B. Graduate Education in the United States, New York: McGraw Hill, 1960.

Blackburn, R. T., and Lingenfelter, P. E. Assessing Quality in Doctorat Programs: Criteria and Correlates o f Excellence. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for the Study of Higher Education, 1973.

Blalock, H. Social Statistics. New York: McGraw Hill, 1972.

Blau, P., and Duncan, O. D. The American Occupational Structure. New York: Wiley, 1967.

Brown, F., and Stent, M. Minorities in U.S. Institutions o f Higher Education. New York: Praeger, 1977.

Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Educatiom Three Thousand Futures: The Next Twenty Years for Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980.

Centra, J. College enrollment in the 1980s: projections and possibilities. Journal of Higher Education, 1980, Jan.-Feb., 18-39.

Clark, B. The "cooling-out function" in higher education. American Journat of Sociology, 1960, 65, 569-576.

350 LANG

Clark, B. Educating the Expert Society. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Com- pany, 1962.

Clark, B. Development of the sociology of higher education. Sociology of Educa- tion, 1973, 46, 2-14.

College-Rater, Inc. Allentown, Pa., 1967. Collins, R. The Credential Society: An Historical Sociology of Education and Strati-

fication. New York: Academic Press, 1979. Crane, D. Social class origin and academic success: the influence of two stratifica-

tion systems on academic careers. Sociology of Education, 1969, 42, 1-17. Cross, K. P. The woman student. In W. T. Furniss and P. Graham (Eds.), Women

in Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1974. Darknell, F. Cotlaboration with industry in the California state colleges. Journal of

College Science Teaching, 1982, 11, 358-362. Davis, J. A. Great Aspirations. Chicago: Aldine, 1964. Davis, J. A. Undergraduate Career Decisions. Chicago" Aldine, 1965. Davis, K., and Moore, W. Some principles of stratification. American Sociological

Review, 1945, 10, 242-249. English, R., and Settle, T. Minority students in higher education. Integrated Educa-

tion, 1976, 14, 3-6. Feldman, S. Escape From the Doll's House: Women in Graduate and Professional

School Education. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974. Fitzpatrick, B. Women's Inferior Education: An Economic Analysis. New York:

Praeger, 1976. Folger, J. K., Astin, H., and Bayer, A. E. Human Resources and Higher Education.

New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1970. Gappa, J., and Uehling, B. Women in Academe: Steps to Greater Equality. Wash-

ington, D.C." American Council on Education, 1979. Goldstein, M. Academic careers and vocational choices of elite and non-elite stu-

dents at an elite college. Sociology of Education, 1974, 47, 491-510. Gordon, R. A. Issues in multiple regression. American Journal of Sociology, 1968,

73, 592-616. The Gourman Report. Phoenix, AZ: Continuing Education Institute, 1967. Green, P. The Pursuit of lnequality. New York: Pantheon, 1981. Hargens, L. L. A note on standardized coefficients as structural parameters. Socio-

logical Methods and Research, 1976, 5, 247-256. Harris, A. Second sex in academe. AA UP Bulletin, 1970, 56, 283-295. Harway, M., and Astin, H. Sex Discrimination in Career Counseling and Educa-

tion. New York: Praeger, 1977. Hearn, J. C. The relative roles of academic, ascribed and socioeconomic character-

istics in coUege destinations. Sociology of Education, 1984, 57, 22-30. Husen, T. Problems of securing equal access to higher education: the dilemma be-

tween equality and excellence. Higher Education, 1976, 5, 407-422. Jencks, C., and Riesman, D. The Academic Revolution. Garden City, NY: Anchor

Books, 1968.


Karabel, J. Community colleges and social stratification. Harvard Educational Re- view, 1972, 42, 521-562.

Karabel, J., and Astin, A. Social class, academic ability, and college "quality." Social Forees, 1975, 53, 381-398.

Kerlinger, F., and Pedhazur, E. Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973.

Kerr, C. Higher education: paradise lost? Higher Education, 1978, 7, 261-278. Kim, J., and Mueller, C. W. Standardized and understandardized coefficients in

causal analysis. Soeiõlogieal Methods and Research, 1976, 4, 423-438. Kohn, M. Class and Conformity: A Study in Values. Homewood, IL: Dorsey, 1969. Lang, D. Educational equality and the academic hierarchy: a study of social class,

sex, and race stratification in graduate and professional schools in the United States. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon, 1983.

Lang, D. Educational equality and the academic hierarchy. Paper presented at the 55th Annual Meetings of the Pacific Sociological Association. Seattle: April 1984.

Lang, D. Inequality and the academic hierarchy. Educational Research Quarterly, in press (a).

Lang, D. Stratification and professional education within the academic hierarchy. Journal o f Research and Devetopment in Edueation, in press (b).

Lang, D. Race inequality and the academic hierarchy. Integratedueation, in press (c). Lawrence, J., and Green, K. A Question of Quality: The Higher Edueation Ratings

Game. Washington, D.C.: Clearing House on Higher Education, American Asso- ciation for Higher Education, 1980.

Lewis, M. The Culture of Inequality. New York: Meridian Books, 1979. Lopez, R., Madrid-Barela, A., and Macias, R. F. Chicanos in Higher Education:

Status and Issues. Los Angeles: Chicano Studies Center Publications, University of California, 1976.

Lipset, S. M., and Ladd, E. The changing social origins of arnerican academics. In R. K. Merton, J. S. Coleman, and P. H. Rossi (Eds~), Quantitative and Qualita- tive Social Research. New York: Free Press, 1979.

Medsker, L., and Trent, J. Factors related to type of college attended. In K. Feld- man (Ed.), College and Student. New York: Pergamon, 1972.

Milner, M. The Illusion o f Equality. Sah Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1972. Parsons, T., and Platt, G. M. The American University. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press, 1973. Pincus, F. The false promise of community colleges: class conflict and vocational

education. Harvard Educational Review, 1980, 50, 332-361.

Richer, S. Middle-class blas of schools- fact or fancy? Sociology of Edueation, 1974, 47, 523-534.

Riesman, D. Education at Harvard. Change, 1973, 5, 24-37.

Riesman, D. The future of diversity in a time of retrenchment. Highër Edueation, 1975, 4, 461-482.

Roizen, J. Black students in higlaer education. In M. Trow (Ed.), Teaehers and Stu- dents. New York: McGraw Hill, 1975.

352 LANG

Roizen, J., Fulton, O., and Trow, M. TechnicalReport: 1975 Carnegie CouncilNa- tional Surveys ofHigher Education. Berkeley: Center for Studies in Higher Educa- tion, University of California, 1978.

Sewell, W. Inequality of opportunity for higher education. American Journal of Sociology, 1971, 36, 793-809.

Solmon, L. Women in doctoral education: clues and puzzles regardiug institutional discrimination. Research in Higher Education, 1973, 1, 229-232.

Solmon, L. Male and Female Graduate Students: The Question of Equal Opportu- nity. New York: Praeger, 1976.

Spaeth, J. The allocation of college graduates to graduate and professional schools. Sociology of Education, 1968, 41, 342-349.

Stockard, J., Schmuck, P. A., Kemper, K., Williams, P., Edson, S.K., and Smith, M. A. Sex Equity in Education. New York: Academic Press, 1980.

Templin, R. G., Jr., and Shearon, R. Curriculum tracking and social inequality in the community college. New Directionsfor Community Colleges, 1980, 8, 83-91.

Trow, M. The expansion and transformation of higher education. International Re- view of Education, 1972, 18, 61-82.

Trow, M. Teachers and Students: Aspects of American Higher Education. New York: McGraw Hill, 1975.

Trow, M. The implication of low growth rates for higher education. Higher Educa- tion, 1976, 5, 377-396.

Watson, B. Through the academic gateway. Change, 1979, 11, 24-28. Webster, D. Advantages and disadvantages of methods of assessing quality. Change,

1981, 13, 20-27.

West, S. S. Class origins of scientists. Sociometry, 1961, 24, 251-269. Wolfle, L. M. Prestige in American universities. Research in Higher Education,

1983, 18, 455-472. Wright, J., and Wright, S. Social class and parental values for children: a partial

replication and extension of the Kohn thesis. American Sociological Review, 1976, 41, 527-537.

Received June 14, 1984

Documents

Education, stratification, and the academic hierarchy