PART I - SAGE Publications · PART I THEORETICAL AND HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES 1 C ontemporary sociological research relies on theoretical perspectives to help inform analysis. Theory

PART I

THEORETICAL ANDHISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES

1

Contemporary sociological research relies on theoretical perspectives to helpinform analysis. Theory provides the concepts we can use to recognize andunderstand new issues, processes, and social developments. Researchers use the-

oretical concepts to enrich their own work and to facilitate dialogue and communicationwith other researchers in a common intellectual community. Part I of this book providesan overview of the central theoretical perspectives that have played a key role in the devel-opment of the sociology of education. As you read subsequent selections in the book, youshould consider whether (and how) the research fits the perspectives outlined next orwhether the studies rely on concepts from theoretical paradigms outside this core socio-logical tradition.

Section IA includes reading on status attainment and social mobility. Max Weber, oneof the most influential theorists in sociology, begins the readings with the argument thateducation has a dual character in society. On one hand, education allows individuals toadvance themselves through meritocratic selection processes. On the other hand, educationis used as a mechanism for social closure: Status groups use education as a means forkeeping outsiders from obtaining access to desirable occupations. Weber’s concern overthis dual character of education stemmed from his experience in Germany with bureau-cracy and the use of civil service exams to place individuals in occupations.

In the second reading, Pitirim Sorokin extends Weber’s work by arguing that schoolssort and sieve students into occupations, thus allowing for a limited amount of mobilitywithin society. Sorokin contends that the role of education in society is to determine allo-cation of scarce resources to individuals.

The third reading in the section is Ralph Turner’s classic piece comparing English andAmerican educational systems. He maintains that the English norm of sponsored mobilityinvolves the careful, early selection of recruits for advancement to elite status. In contrast,American mobility is normatively a contest in which all individuals are purported to havean equal chance at attaining elite status at multiple stages in their educational careers.These different structures of mobility have profound implications for value and content ofeducation in each society.

In the final reading of this section, Archibald Haller and Alejandro Portes provide anoverview of two early status attainment perspectives. First, they present Peter Blau and OtisDudley Duncan’s modeling of the role of education in mediating the relationship between

an individual’s social origins and social destination. The second perspective, the Wisconsinmodel, builds on Blau and Duncan’s early status attainment work by investigating additionalsocial psychological variables and the role of students’ relationships with peers, teachers,and parents.

Section IB highlights three central theoretical concepts in the sociology of education:human capital, cultural capital, and social capital. First, Gary Becker, an economist, pro-vides an articulation of human capital theory. He contends that an investment in humancapital—expanding individual knowledge and skills—leads to economic growth for indi-viduals, businesses, and societies. Becker’s work focuses on the financial rate of return forhigh school and college education in the United States, but he generalizes his findings toinvestments in human capital of varying amounts and kinds.

Next, Michèle Lamont and Annette Lareau explicate Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of cul-tural capital. Cultural capital includes a host of linguistic and cultural competencies (gen-erally related to art, literature, music, and theater) that are more easily accessed by peoplefrom the middle and upper classes. Bourdieu argues that cultural capital is important foreducation because these competencies are valued—though never really taught—inschools. In this way, schools aid in reproducing the social order, by rewarding students whoenter with cultural advantages and punishing students who enter with cultural disadvan-tages. Lamont and Lareau review how American sociologists have adopted Bourdieu’swork for the context of the United States. Writing in France, Bourdieu defined culturalcapital as competencies in and preferences for a uniquely French high culture of art, music,and literature. Lamont and Lareau suggest a redefinition of cultural capital that is broaderin scope than that of Bourdieu’s original theorizing. The authors are expert readers ofBourdieu and point out ambiguities, gaps, and methodological problems in his originalwork. Lamont and Lareau conclude by proposing a research agenda for sociologists inter-ested in moving forward with the intellectual project of theorizing how cultural capitalfunctions in the context of the United States.

In the final reading on a concept of capital, James Coleman and Thomas Hoffer writeabout how social capital affects schools. Social capital is the relationship between people,at both familial and community levels, that emerges from social structures in which peoplelive. Coleman and Hoffer maintain that the absence of social capital among public schoolfamilies represents a loss of vital resources for students in these settings. Private andCatholic schools exhibit greater closure in social networks of students’ families and are ableboth to generate greater consensus of norms among families and to implement intergener-ational transmission of these norms through greater monitoring and enforcement. JamesColeman’s work intellectually dominated the research in sociology of education for threedecades. Additional selections of Coleman’s work appear in this reader in Parts II and IV.

Section IC focuses on changing theories of education systems. Émile Durkheim, a the-orist whose work—like Max Weber’s—formed the basis for modern sociology, identifiedthe role of education in integrating individuals into society. Durkheim argued that schoolshave a critical role in socializing individuals to accept productive social roles. Throughinteractions with school authority, students learn self-discipline, which is essential to theirattachment to the larger society.

The Willard Waller reading emphasizes that, in addition to developing individual cit-izens, schools are part of a larger community. This reading is an early articulation ofthe importance of neighborhood context and family composition in defining school

2 • THE STRUCTURE OF SCHOOLING

communities. Schools both affect and are influenced by the communities in which theyare situated. Waller demonstrates that schools are not merely islands unto themselvesbut that they incorporate moral positions and attitudes of the community at large. Thisrole puts particular pressure on teachers to represent the “ideals of the community.”Such a task is difficult when there are conflicting ideals and demands or when there areadditional constraints on a teacher’s personal life. Although it might be tempting toshrug off the community and school policing of teacher behavior as an archaic histori-cal artifact from Waller’s time (the 1930s), this practice continues, as evidenced byrecent firings of teachers for the use of “objectionable” reading material or for comingout as gay, lesbian, or bisexual.Next, Randall Collins provides an explanation for trends in educational expansion. Collins

returns to the work of Max Weber by asserting that status groups use education to monopo-lize their access to scarce resources. Collins argues that schools are increasingly important, butnot because they impart socially relevant skills and knowledge. Rather, the increasing signif-icance of schooling is the result of the role of education in providing credentials that serve asexclusionary requirements for privileged occupational positions. Collins’ work demonstratesthat rising education requirements for jobs are driven by the expansion of opportunities inschooling rather than by changes in the structure of employment. In his later work, Collins(1979) extends this argument to show that such a trend ultimately serves to devalue educa-tional credentials, making continued expansion of degree attainment inevitable.Finally, Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis argue from a Neo-Marxist perspective that

schools play a central role in the social reproduction of the class structure. Social repro-duction theory, which their analysis advances, purports that schools developed in theUnited States to serve the interest of a capitalist class. Bowles and Gintis maintain thatmass education promotes the illusion of meritocratic selection, thereby socializing work-ing class youth to accept their failure as the result of their own shortcomings. This per-spective challenges status attainment and human capital theories by conceptualizingschools as a hindrance to social mobility and as producers of surplus workers at themercy of capitalist employers. While Bowles and Gintis have been embraced andexpanded upon by Neo-Marxist educational theorists, their work is also criticized forbeing too simplistic a model of class imposition. Researchers with similar political lean-ings argue that labor movements, ethnic groups, professional educators, and middle-class reformers were primarily responsible for the historical development of moderneducational institutions (e.g., Katznelson & Weir, 1985; Reese, 1986). This alternativeresearch tradition views the working class as an active participant in the development ofthe education system rather than simply as a passive group on whom capitalists imposean inequitable schooling apparatus.

REFERENCES

Collins, R. (1979). The credential society: A historical sociology of education and stratification.NewYork: Academic Press.

Katznelson, I., & Weir, M. (1985). Schooling for all. Berkeley: University of California Press.Reese, W. (1986). Power and the promise of school reform: Grassroots movements during the

Progressive Era. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Part I. Theoretical and Historical Perspectives • 3

1THE “RATIONALIZATION” OF

EDUCATION AND TRAINING

MAX WEBER

4

We cannot here analyze the far-reach-ing and general cultural effects thatthe advance of the rational bureau-

cratic structure of domination, as such, developsquite independently of the areas in which it takeshold. Naturally, bureaucracy promotes a “rational-ist”way of life, but the concept of rationalism allowsfor widely differing contents. Quite generally, onecan only say that the bureaucratization of all domi-nation very strongly furthers the development of“rational matter-of-factness” and the personalitytype of the professional expert. This has far-reachingramifications, but only one important element of theprocess can be briefly indicated here: its effect uponthe nature of training and education.

Educational institutions on the Europeancontinent, especially the institutions of higherlearning—the universities, as well as technicalacademies, business colleges, gymnasiums, andother middle schools—are dominated and influ-enced by the need for the kind of “education”

that produces a system of special examinationsand the trained expertness that is increasinglyindispensable for modern bureaucracy.

The “special examination,” in the present sense,was and is found also outside of bureaucratic struc-tures proper; thus, today it is found in the “free”professions of medicine and law and in the guild-organized trades. Expert examinations are neitherindispensable to nor concomitant phenomena ofbureaucratization. The French, English, andAmerican bureaucracies have for a long time for-gone such examinations entirely or to a largeextent, for training and service in party organiza-tions have made up for them.

“Democracy” also takes an ambivalent stand inthe face of specialized examinations, as it does inthe face of all the phenomena of bureaucracy—although democracy itself promotes these develop-ments. Special examinations, on the one hand,mean or appear to mean a “selection” of those whoqualify from all social strata rather than a rule by

SOURCE: Max Weber, excerpt from “The ‘Rationalization’ of Education and Training” from Max Weber: Essays in Sociology,translated by H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (pp. 240–243). Copyright © 1946 by Max Weber. Reprinted with the permissionof Oxford University Press, Inc.

notables. On the other hand, democracy fears thata merit system and educational certificates willresult in a privileged “caste.” Hence, democracyfights against the special-examination system.

The special examination is found even in pre-bureaucratic or semi-bureaucratic epochs.Indeed, the regular and earliest locus of specialexaminations is among prebendally organizeddominions. Expectancies of prebends, first ofchurch prebends—as in the Islamite Orient andin the Occidental Middle Ages—then, as wasespecially the case in China, secular prebends,are the typical prizes for which people study andare examined. These examinations, however,have in truth only a partially specialized andexpert character.

The modern development of full bureaucratiza-tion brings the system of rational, specialized, andexpert examinations irresistibly to the fore. Thecivil-service reform gradually imports expert train-ing and specialized examinations into the UnitedStates. In all other countries this system alsoadvances, stemming from its main breeding place,Germany. The increasing bureaucratization ofadministration enhances the importance of the spe-cialized examination in England. In China, theattempt to replace the semi-patrimonial andancient bureaucracy by a modern bureaucracybrought the expert examination; it took the place ofa former and quite differently structured system ofexaminations. The bureaucratization of capitalism,with its demand for expertly trained technicians,clerks, et cetera, carries such examinations all overthe world. Above all, the development is greatlyfurthered by the social prestige of the educationalcertificates acquired through such specializedexaminations. This is all the more the case as theeducational patent is turned to economic advan-tage. Today, the certificate of education becomeswhat the test for ancestors has been in the past, atleast where the nobility has remained powerful: aprerequisite for equality of birth, a qualificationfor a canonship, and for state office.

The development of the diploma from universi-ties, and business and engineering colleges, andthe universal clamor for the creation of educationalcertificates in all fields make for the formation of

a privileged stratum in bureaus and in offices.Such certificates support their holders’ claims forintermarriages with notable families (in businessoffices people naturally hope for preferment withregard to the chief’s daughter), claims to be admit-ted into the circles that adhere to “codes of honor,”claims for a “respectable” remuneration rather thanremuneration for work done, claims for assuredadvancement and old-age insurance, and, aboveall, claims to monopolize socially and economi-cally advantageous positions. When we hear fromall sides the demand for an introduction of regularcurricula and special examinations, the reasonbehind it is, of course, not a suddenly awakened“thirst for education” but the desire for restrictingthe supply for these positions and their monopo-lization by the owners of educational certificates.Today, the “examination” is the universal means ofthis monopolization, and therefore examinationsirresistibly advance. As the education prerequisiteto the acquisition of the educational certificaterequires considerable expense and a period ofwaiting for full remuneration, this striving means asetback for talent (charisma) in favor of property.For the “intellectual” costs of educational certifi-cates are always low, and with the increasingvolume of such certificates, their intellectual costsdo not increase, but rather decrease.

The requirement of a chivalrous style of life inthe old qualification for fiefs in Germany isreplaced by the necessity of participating in itspresent rudimentary form as represented by thedueling corps of the universities which also dis-tribute the educational certificates. In Anglo-Saxon countries, athletic and social clubs fulfillthe same function. The bureaucracy, on the otherhand, strives everywhere for a “right to theoffice” by the establishment of a regular discipli-nary procedure and by removal of the completelyarbitrary disposition of the “chief ” over the sub-ordinate official. The bureaucracy seeks to securethe official position, the orderly advancement,and the provision for old age. In this, the bureau-cracy is supported by the “democratic” sentimentof the governed, which demands that dominationbe minimized. Those who hold this attitudebelieve themselves able to discern a weakening of

The “Rationalization” of Education and Training • 5

the master’s prerogatives in every weakening ofthe arbitrary disposition of the master over theofficials. To this extent, bureaucracy, both in busi-ness offices and in public service, is a carrier of aspecific “status” development, as have been thequite differently structured officeholders of thepast. We have already pointed out that these sta-tus characteristics are usually also exploited, andthat by their nature they contribute to the techni-cal usefulness of the bureaucracy in fulfilling itsspecific tasks.

“Democracy” reacts precisely against theunavoidable “status” character of bureaucracy.Democracy seeks to put the election of officialsfor short terms in the place of appointed officials;it seeks to substitute the removal of officials byelection for a regulated procedure of discipline.Thus, democracy seeks to replace the arbitrarydisposition of the hierarchically superordinate“master” by the equally arbitrary disposition ofthe governed and the party chiefs dominatingthem.

Social prestige based upon the advantage ofspecial education and training as such is by nomeans specific to bureaucracy. On the contrary!But educational prestige in other structures ofdomination rests upon substantially differentfoundations.

Expressed in slogan-like fashion, the “culti-vated man,” rather than the “specialist,” has beenthe end sought by education and has formed thebasis of social esteem in such various systems asthe feudal, theocratic, and patrimonial structuresof dominion: in the English notable administra-tion, in the old Chinese patrimonial bureaucracy,as well as under the rule of demagogues in theso-called Hellenic democracy.

The term “cultivated man” is used here in acompletely value-neutral sense; it is understoodto mean solely that the goal of education consistsin the quality of a man’s bearing in life which wasconsidered “cultivated,” rather than in a special-ized training for expertness. The “cultivated” per-sonality formed the educational ideal, which wasstamped by the structure of domination and bythe social condition for membership in the ruling

stratum. Such education aimed at a chivalrous oran ascetic type; or at a literary type, as in China;a gymnastic-humanist type, as in Hellas; or itaimed at a conventional type, as in the case of theAnglo-Saxon gentleman. The qualification of theruling stratum as such rested upon the possessionof “more” cultural quality (in the absolutelychangeable, value-neutral sense in which we usethe term here), rather than upon “more” expertknowledge. Special military, theological, andjuridical ability was of course intensely practiced;but the point of gravity in Hellenic, in medieval,as well as in Chinese education, has rested uponeducational elements that were entirely differentfrom what was “useful” in one’s specialty.

Behind all the present discussions of the foun-dations of the educational system, the struggleof the “specialist type of man” against the oldertype of “cultivated man” is hidden at some deci-sive point. This fight is determined by the irre-sistibly expanding bureaucratization of all publicand private relations of authority and by the ever-increasing importance of expert and specializedknowledge. The fight intrudes into all intimatecultural questions.

During its advance, bureaucratic organiza-tion has had to overcome those essentially neg-ative obstacles that have stood in the way of theleveling process necessary for bureaucracy. Inaddition, administrative structures based on dif-ferent principles intersect with bureaucraticorganizations.

The bureaucratic structure is everywhere a lateproduct of development. The further back we traceour steps, the more typical is the absence ofbureaucracy and officialdom in the structure ofdomination. Bureaucracy has a “rational” charac-ter: rules, means, ends, and matter-of-factnessdominate its bearing. Everywhere its origin and itsdiffusion have therefore had “revolutionary”results. . . . This is the same influence which theadvance of rationalism in general has had. Themarch of bureaucracy has destroyed structures ofdomination, which had no rational character, inthe special sense of the term. Hence, we may ask:What were these structures?

6 • PART IA. STATUS ATTAINMENT AND SOCIAL MOBILITY

2SOCIAL AND CULTURAL MOBILITY

PITIRIM SOROKIN

7

DEFINITION

In any society there are a great many peoplewho want to climb up into its upper strata.Since only a few succeed in doing this, andsince, under normal conditions, the vertical cir-culation does not have an anarchical character,it seems that in any society there is a mecha-nism which controls the process of vertical cir-culation. This control seems to consist in thefirst place, in testing individuals with respectto their suitableness for the performance of adefinite social function; in the second place, inthe selection of individuals for a definite socialposition;1 in the third place, in a correspondingdistribution of the members of a society amongdifferent social strata, in their promotion, or intheir degradation. In other words, within astratified society, there seem to exist not onlychannels of vertical circulation, but also a kindof a “sieve” within these channels which siftsthe individuals and places them within thesociety. The essential purpose of this control is

to distribute the individuals so that each is placedaccording to his talents and able to perform suc-cessfully his social function. Wrongly placed,individuals do their social work poorly; and, asa result, all society suffers and disintegrates.Though there scarcely has existed any society inwhich the distribution of individuals has beenquite perfect, in complete accordance with therule “Everybody must be placed according to hisability,”2 nevertheless, many societies haveexisted for a long time and this very fact meansthat their mechanism of social testing, selecting,and distributing their members has not beenwholly bad and has performed its function in amore or less satisfactory way. The problems to bediscussed now are: What represents this mecha-nism of selection and distribution of individuals?How and on what bases does it test, select, anddistribute them?The first question may be answered in the fol-

lowing way: in any given society this mechanismis composed of all the social institutions andorganizations which perform these functions.

SOURCE: Excerpt from “Mechanism of Social Testing, Selection, and Distribution of Individuals within Different SocialStrata” from Social and Cultural Mobility (pp. 182–183, 187–190, 208–211). Reprinted with the permission of The Free Press,a division of Simon & Schuster, Inc. from Social and Cultural Mobility by Pitirim Sorokin. Copyright 1959 by The Free Press.All rights reserved.

As a general rule these institutions are thesame as those which function as channels of ver-tical circulation. These institutions, such as thefamily, army, church, school, political, profes-sional, and occupational organizations are notonly a channel of social circulation, but are at thesame time the “sieves” which test and sift, selectand distribute the individuals within differentsocial strata or positions.Some of them, as the school and family, are

the machinery which tests principally the gen-eral qualities of individuals necessary for a suc-cessful performance of a great many functions,such as their general intelligence, health, andsocial character. Some other institutions, suchas many occupational organizations, are themachinary which tests the specific quality ofindividuals necessary for a successful perfor-mance of a specific function in a given occupa-tion; the voice of a prospective singer, theoratorical talent of a prospective politician, thephysical strength of a future heavyweight cham-pion, and so forth. Turn now to the problem ofhow these institutions perform these functionsand what principal types of testing, selection,and distribution exist in different societies. Thiswill give us a somewhat deeper insight intomany institutions, and will show that many ofthem, quite absurd at first sight, have been,indeed, quite understandable under existingcircumstances.

THE SCHOOL AS A TESTING AND

SELECTIVE AND DISTRIBUTIVE AGENCY

A kind of machinery for testing the abilities ofthe individuals and determining their social posi-tion has been the school. The family is theagency which gives the first test; earlier than anyother group, it determines the life career and theprospective social position of the children. Buteven in the caste-society the family test andinfluences, to some degree, are retested andreconsidered by other agencies, the educatorand the teacher among them; still more true is

this of societies of another type, especially ofthose in which we live.If at the present time the family status and

education outline roughly the life career of itschildren, the school is the next agency whichretests the “decisions” of a family, and veryoften and very decisively changes them. Up tothe last few years, the school was regarded pri-marily as an educational institution. Its socialfunction was seen in “pouring” into a student adefinite amount of knowledge, and, to someextent, in shaping his behavior. The testing, theselective, and the distributive functions of theschool were almost completely overlooked,although these functions of the school arescarcely less important than that of “enlighten-ment” and “education.” During the last fewyears many specialists in different fields havebegun to see these functions. At the presentmoment it is certain that the school, while beinga “training and educational” institution, is at thesame time, a piece of social machinery, whichtests the abilities of the individuals, which siftsthem, selects them, and decides their prospec-tive social position. In other words, the essen-tial social function of the school is not only tofind out whether a pupil has learned a definitepart of a textbook or not, but through all itsexaminations and moral supervision to dis-cover, in the first place, which of the pupils aretalented and which are not what ability everypupil has and in what degree; and which ofthem are socially and morally fit; in the secondplace, to eliminate those who do not have thedesirable mental and moral qualities; in thethird place, through an elimination of the fail-ures to close the doors for their social promo-tion, at least within certain definite socialfields, and to promote those who happen to bethe bright students in the direction of thosesocial positions which correspond to their gen-eral and specific abilities. Whether successfulor not, these purposes are some of the mostimportant functions of the school. From thisstandpoint the school is primarily a testing,selecting, and distributing agency. In its totalthe whole school system, with its handicaps,


quizzes, examinations, supervision of thestudents, and their grading, ranking, evaluating,eliminating, and promoting, is a very compli-cated “sieve,” which sifts “the good” from “thebad” future citizens, “the able” from “the dull,”“those fitted for the high positions” from those“unfitted.” This explains what is meant by thetesting, selective, and distributive functions ofschool machinery.The intensiveness of this function of the

school naturally fluctuates from society tosociety, from time to time. Among other condi-tions, it strongly depends on the extent to whichthe testing and the sifting of individuals is car-ried out by other institutions, and especially bythe family. If the family performs this role effi-ciently, in such a way that only an alreadyselected group of children reaches the doors ofthe schools and enters them, then the testing andthe selecting and sifting role of the school is notso necessary as in the case when the doors of theschool are open for all children, when there is noselection and elimination preceding schoolentrance. Under such conditions, naturally, thereare a great many children incapable of progress-ing further than the first few grades of school;the number of failures is greater than where thereis pre-school selection. Therefore, the elimina-tion work of the school becomes much greaterand more pitiless. It increases as it proceeds,going from the lower grades to the higher, fromthe elementary to the secondary school, from thesecondary school to the college. As a result, outof the many pupils who enter the door of the ele-mentary school only an insignificant minorityreach the stage of university graduation. Thegreat majority (see below for figures) are elimi-nated, not only from school, but automaticallythereby from climbing up this ladder to highsocial positions. Part of those eliminated succeedin climbing through another ladder (money mak-ing, etc.), but only a small part.3 The majority ofthose eliminated from the school through “theschool sieve” are doomed to be placed at a rela-tively lower social position. In this way, in certainsocieties the school does the work of selection,and bars the social promotion of individuals who

have not been barred and selected by the family.This explains the fact that, contrary to the com-mon opinion, universal education and instructionleads not so much to an obliteration of mentaland social differences as to their increase. Theschool, even the most democratic school, open toeverybody, if it performs its task properly, is amachinery of the “aristocratization” and stratifi-cation of society, not of “leveling” and “democ-ratization.” The following representative datashow clearly the testing, selective, and eliminat-ing role of the school in the United States ofAmerica. According to Doctor Ayres,4 for every1,000 children who enter the first grade, we havein the higher grades:

723 in the second grade

692 in the third grade

640 in the fourth grade

552 in the fifth grade

462 in the sixth grade

368 in the seventh grade

263 in the eighth grade

189 in the first grade of high school

123 in the second grade of high school

81 in the third grade of high school

56 in the fourth grade of high school

Admitting that out of 1,000 children whoenter the first grade, there must be, owing to thedeath and increase of population, in the eighthgrade, 871, we see that, in fact, we have insteadof this figure only 263. The remaining 608pupils are eliminated and dropped out ofschool. A similar conclusion is given by DoctorThorndike.5 According to his data, 25 percentof the white children in the United States atthe beginning of the twentieth century couldreach only the fifth grade. According to DoctorStrayer and Doctor Terman, out of 100 childrenentering elementary school only about 40 remainto enter the high school and only 10 are graduatedfrom high school.6

Social and Cultural Mobility • 9

NOTES

1. From the text it is clear that the selection heremeans not a biological selection in the sense of a dif-ferential survival but a social sorting of individualsamong the different strata or groups: non-admission orrejection of the unsuitable and placement or taking inof suitable individuals.

2. This social placement to everybody accord-ing to his talent was known long ago; it is the mottoof the Indian, of the Chinese, and of the Greek andthe Roman writers. It composes the central idea ofPlato’s Justice in his Republic; it is the dominant ideaof Confucius, Aristotle, and of the Sacred Books ofIndia.

3. Even in the field of money making the majorityof the successful money makers have been those who

successfully met the school test. Part of those who havenot had such a test in no way could be regarded as theschool failures. They do not have the degrees simplybecause they did not have the chance to enter the school.Out of 631 richest men of America, 54 percent hold acollege degree; 18.5 percent went to high school; 24.1went to elementary school, only 3.4 percent had no edu-cation except self-education. Sorokin, P., “AmericanMillionaires and Multimillionaires,” p. 637.

4. Leonard P. Ayres, Laggards in Our Schools(NewYork Survey Association, 1913), p. 13.

5. E. Thorndike, The Elimination of Pupils fromSchool, p. 9.

6. G. D. Strayer, “Age and Grade Census of Schoolsand Colleges,” United States Bureau of Education, Bull.No. 451, p. 6; L. Terman, “The Intelligence of SchoolChildren,” pp. 87–89.


3SPONSORED AND CONTESTMOBILITY AND THE SCHOOL SYSTEMRALPH H. TURNER

11

This [chapter] suggests a framework forrelating certain differences betweenAmerican and English systems of edu-

cation to the prevailing norms of upwardmobility in each country. Others have noted thetendency of educational systems to supportprevailing schemes of stratification, but thisdiscussion concerns specifically the manner inwhich the accepted mode of upward mobilityshapes the school system directly and indi-rectly through its effects on the values whichimplement social control.Two ideal-typical normative patterns of

upward mobility are described and their ramifi-cations in the general patterns of stratificationand social control are suggested. In addition toshowing relationships among a number of differ-ences between American and English schooling,the ideal-types have broader implications thanthose developed in this [chapter]: they suggest amajor dimension of stratification which might beprofitably incorporated into a variety of studies

in social class, and they readily can be applied infurther comparisons between other countries.

THE NATURE OF ORGANIZING NORMS

Many investigators have concerned themselveswith rates of upward mobility in specific coun-tries or internationally,1 and with the manner inwhich school systems facilitate or impede suchmobility.2 But preoccupation with the extent ofmobility has precluded equal attention to thepredominant modes of mobility. The centralassumption underlying this [chapter] is thatwithin a formally open class system that pro-vides for mass education, the organizing folknorm which defines the accepted mode ofupward mobility is a crucial factor in shapingthe school system, and may be even more cru-cial than the extent of upward mobility. InEngland and the United States there appear to bedifferent organizing folk norms, here termed

SOURCE: Ralph Turner, “Modes of Social Ascent through Education: Sponsored and Contest Mobility,” American SociologicalReview 25 (December 1960):855-67.

sponsored mobility and contest mobility, respec-tively. Contest mobility is a system in whichelite3 status is the prize in an open contest and istaken by the aspirants’ own efforts. While the“contest” is governed by some rules of fair play,the contestants have wide latitude in the strate-gies they may employ. Since the “prize” of suc-cessful upward mobility is not in the hands of anestablished elite to give out, the latter cannotdetermine who shall attain it and who shall not.Under sponsored mobility elite recruits are cho-sen by the established elite or their agents, andelite status is given on the basis of some crite-rion of supposed merit and cannot be taken byany amount of effort or strategy. Upward mobil-ity is like entry into a private club where eachcandidate must be “sponsored” by one or moreof the members. Ultimately the members grantor deny upward mobility on the basis of whetherthey judge the candidate to have those qualitiesthey wish to see in fellow members.Before elaborating this distinction, it should

be noted that these systems of mobility are idealtypes designed to clarify observed differences inthe predominantly similar English and Americansystems of stratification and education. But asorganizing norms these principles are assumed tobe present at least implicitly in people’s thinking,guiding their judgments of what is appropriate onmany specific matters. Such organizing norms donot correspond perfectly with the objective char-acteristics of the societies in which they exist, norare they completely independent of them. Fromthe complex interplay of social and economicconditions and ideologies, people in a societydevelop a highly simplified conception of theway in which events take place. This conceptionof the “natural” is translated into a norm—the“natural” becomes what “ought” to be—and inturn imposes a strain toward consistency uponrelevant aspects of the society. Thus the norm actsback upon the objective conditions to which itrefers and has ramifying effects upon directly andindirectly related features of the society.4

In brief, the conception of an ideal-typical orga-nizing norm involves the following propositions:(1) The ideal types are not fully exemplified in

practice since they are normative systems, and nonormative system can be devised so as to cope withall empirical exigencies. (2) Predominant normsusually compete with less ascendant norms engen-dered by changes and inconsistencies in the under-lying social structure. (3) Though not fully explicit,organizing folk norms are reflected in specificvalue judgments. Those judgments which the rele-vant people regard as having a convincing ring tothem, irrespective of the logic expressed, or whichseem to require no extended argumentation maybe presumed to reflect the prevailing folk norms.(4) The predominant organizing norms in one seg-ment of society are functionally related to those inother segments.Two final qualifications concerning the scope

of this [chapter]: First, the organizing folk normof upward mobility affects the school systembecause one of the latter’s functions is the facili-tation of mobility. Since this is only one of sev-eral social functions of the school, and not themost important function in the societies underexamination, only a very partial accounting ofthe whole set of forces making for similaritiesand differences in the school systems of theUnited States and England is possible here. Onlythose differences which directly or indirectlyreflect the performance of the mobility functionare noted. Second, the concern of this [chapter] iswith the current dynamics of the situation in thetwo countries rather than with their historicaldevelopment.

DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE TWO NORMS

Contest mobility is like a sporting event in whichmany compete for a few recognized prizes. Thecontest is judged to be fair only if all the playerscompete on an equal footing. Victory must bewon solely by one’s own efforts. The most satis-factory outcome is not necessarily a victory of themost able, but of the most deserving. The tortoisewho defeats the hare is a folk-prototype of thedeserving sportsman. Enterprise, initiative, perse-verance, and craft are admirable qualities if theyallow the person who is initially at a disadvantage


to triumph. Even clever manipulation of the rulesmay be admired if it helps the contestant who issmaller or less muscular or less rapid to win.Applied to mobility, the contest norm means thatvictory by a person of moderate intelligenceaccomplished through the use of common sense,craft, enterprise, daring, and successful risk taking5

is more appreciated than victory by the mostintelligent or the best educated.Sponsored mobility, in contrast, rejects the

pattern of the contest and favors a controlledselection process. In this process the elite or theiragents, deemed to be best qualified to judgemerit, choose individuals for elite status whohave the appropriate qualities. Individuals do notwin or seize elite status; mobility is rather aprocess of sponsored induction into the elite.Pareto had this sort of mobility in mind when

he suggested that a governing class might dis-pose of persons potentially dangerous to it byadmitting them to elite membership, providedthat the recruits change character by adoptingelite attitudes and interests.6 Danger to the rulingclass would seldom be the major criterion forchoice of elite recruits. But Pareto assumed thatthe established elite would select whom theywished to enter their ranks and would inculcatethe attitudes and interests of the established elitein the recruits.The governing objective of contest mobility is

to give elite status to those who earn it, while thegoal of sponsored mobility is to make the bestuse of the talents in society by sorting personsinto their proper niches. In different societies theconditions of competitive struggle may rewardquite different attributes, and sponsored mobilitymay select individuals on the basis of suchdiverse qualities as intelligence or visionarycapability, but the difference in principle remainsthe same.7

Under the contest system society at largeestablishes and interprets the criteria of elite sta-tus. If one wishes to have his status recognizedhe must display certain credentials which iden-tify his class to those about him. The credentialsmust be highly visible and require no specialskill for their assessment, since credentials are

presented to the masses. Material possession andmass popularity are altogether appropriate cre-dentials in this respect, and any special skillwhich produces a tangible product and which caneasily be assessed by the untrained will do. Thenature of sponsored mobility precludes theseprocedures, but assigns to credentials insteadthe function of identifying elite members to oneanother.8 Accordingly, the ideal credentials arespecial skills that require the trained discrimina-tion of the elite for their recognition. In this case,intellectual, literary, or artistic excellencies,which can be appraised only by those trained toappreciate them, are fully suitable credentials.Concentration on such skills lessens the likeli-hood that an interloper will succeed in claimingthe right to elite membership on grounds of thepopular evaluation of his competence.In the sporting event there is special admira-

tion for the slow starter who makes a dramaticfinish, and many of the rules are designed toinsure that the race should not be declared overuntil it has run its full course. Contest mobilityincorporates this disapproval of prematurejudgments and of anything that gives specialadvantage to those who are ahead at any pointin the race. Under sponsored mobility, fairlyearly selection of only the number of personsnecessary to fill anticipated vacancies in theelite is desirable. Early selection allows time toprepare the recruits for their elite position.Aptitudes, inherent capacities, and spiritualgifts can be assessed fairly early in life by tech-niques ranging from divination to the mostsophisticated psychological test, and the morenaive the subjects at the time of selection theless likely are their talents to be blurred by dif-ferential learning or conspiracy to defeat thetest. Since elitists take the initiative in trainingrecruits, they are more interested in the latters’capabilities than in what they will do with themon their own, and they are concerned that noone else should first have an opportunity totrain the recruits’ talents in the wrong direction.Contest mobility tends to delay the final awardas long as practicable to permit a fair race;sponsored mobility tends to place the time of

Sponsored and Contest Mobility and the School System • 13

recruitment as early in life as practicable toinsure control over selection and training.Systems of sponsored mobility develop most

readily in societies with but a single elite or witha recognized elite hierarchy. When multipleelites compete among themselves the mobilityprocess tends to take the contest pattern, since nogroup is able to command control of recruitment.Sponsored mobility further depends upon asocial structure that fosters monopoly of elitecredentials. Lack of such monopoly undercutssponsorship and control of the recruitmentprocess. Monopoly of credentials in turn is typi-cally a product of societies with well-entrenchedtraditional aristocracies employing such creden-tials as family line and bestowable title which areintrinsically subject to monopoly, or of societiesorganized on large-scale bureaucratic lines per-mitting centralized control of upward socialmovement.English society has been described as the jux-

taposition of two systems of stratification, theurban industrial class system and the survivingaristocratic system. While the sponsored mobil-ity pattern reflects the logic of the latter, ourimpression is that it pervades popular thinkingrather than merely coexisting with the logic ofindustrial stratification. Patterns imported intoan established culture tend to be reshaped, asthey are assimilated, into consistency with theestablished culture. Thus it may be that changesin stratification associated with industrializationhave led to alterations in the rates, the specificmeans, and the rules of mobility, but that thesechanges have been guided by the but lightly chal-lenged organizing norm of sponsored mobility.

SOCIAL CONTROL AND THE TWO NORMS

Every society must cope with the problem ofmaintaining loyalty to its social system and doesso in part through norms and values, only someof which vary by class position. Norms and val-ues especially prevalent within a given classmust direct behavior into channels that supportthe total system, while those that transcend strata

must support the general class differential. Theway in which upward mobility takes place deter-mines in part the kinds of norms and values thatserve the indicated purposes of social control ineach class and throughout the society.The most conspicuous control problem is that

of ensuring loyalty in the disadvantaged classestoward a system in which their members receiveless than a proportional share of society’s goods.In a system of contest mobility this is accom-plished by a combination of futuristic orienta-tion, the norm of ambition, and a general senseof fellowship with the elite. Each individual isencouraged to think of himself as competing foran elite position so that loyalty to the system andconventional attitudes are cultivated in theprocess of preparation for this possibility. It isessential that this futuristic orientation be keptalive by delaying a sense of final irreparable fail-ure to reach elite status until attitudes are wellestablished. By thinking of himself in the suc-cessful future, the elite aspirant forms consider-able identification with elitists, and evidence thatthey are merely ordinary human beings like him-self helps to reinforce this identification as wellas to keep alive the conviction that he himselfmay someday succeed in like manner. To fore-stall rebellion among the disadvantaged majority,then, a contest system must avoid absolute pointsof selection for mobility and immobility andmust delay clear recognition of the realities ofthe situation until the individual is too committedto the system to change radically. A futuristic ori-entation cannot, of course, be inculcated suc-cessfully in all members of lower strata, butsufficient internalization of a norm of ambitiontends to leave the unambitious as individualdeviants and to forestall the latters’ formation ofa genuine subcultural group able to offer collec-tive threat to the established system. Where thiskind of control system operates rather effectivelyit is notable that organized or gang deviancy ismore likely to take the form of an attack upon theconventional or moral order rather than uponthe class system itself. Thus the United Stateshas its “beatniks”9 who repudiate ambition andmost worldly values and its delinquent and criminal


gangs who try to evade the limitations imposedby conventional means,10 but very few activerevolutionaries.These social controls are inappropriate in a

system of sponsorship since the elite recruits arechosen from above. The principal threat to thesystem would lie in the existence of a stronggroup, the members of whom sought to take elitepositions themselves. Control under this systemis maintained by training the “masses” to regardthemselves as relatively incompetent to managesociety, by restricting access to the skills andmanners of the elite, and by cultivating belief inthe superior competence of the elite. The earlierthat selection of the elite recruits is made, thesooner others can be taught to accept their infe-riority and to make “realistic” rather than phan-tasy plans. Early selection prevents raising thehopes of large numbers of people who might oth-erwise become the discontended leaders of aclass challenging the sovereignty of the estab-lished elite. If it is assumed that the difference incompetence between masses and elite is seldomso great as to support the usual differences in theadvantages accruing to each,11 then the differ-ences must be artificially augmented by discour-aging acquisition of elite skills by the masses.Thus a sense of mystery about the elite is a com-mon device for supporting in the masses the illu-sion of a much greater hiatus of competence thanin fact exists.While elitists are unlikely to reject a system

that benefits them, they must still be restrainedfrom taking such advantage of their favorable sit-uation as to jeopardize the entire elite. Under thesponsorship system the elite recruits—who areselected early, freed from the strain of competi-tive struggle, and kept under close superivsion—may be thoroughly indoctrinated in elite culture.A norm of paternalism toward inferiors may beinculcated, a heightened sensitivity to the goodopinion of fellow elitists and elite recruits may becultivated, and the appreciation of the more com-plex forms of aesthetic, literary, intellectual, andsporting activities may be taught. Norms of cour-tesy and altruism easily can be maintained undersponsorship since elite recruits are not required to

compete for their standing and since the elite maydeny high standing to those who strive for posi-tion by “unseemly” methods. The system of spon-sorship provides an almost perfect setting for thedevelopment of an elite culture characterized by asense of responsibility for “inferiors” and forpreservation of the “finer things” of life.Elite control in the contest system is more dif-

ficult since there is no controlled induction andapprenticeship. The principal regulation seems tolie in the insecurity of elite position. In a sensethere is no “final arrival” because each personmay be displaced by newcomers throughout hislife. The limited control of high standing fromabove prevents the clear delimitation of levels inthe class system, so that success itself becomesrelative: each success, rather than an accom-plishment, serves to qualify the participant forcompetition at the next higher level.12 Therestraints upon the behavior of a person of highstanding, therefore, are principally those applic-able to a contestant who must not risk the “gang-ing up” of other contestants, and who must paysome attention to the masses who are frequentlyin a position to impose penalties upon him. Butany special norm of paternalism is hard to estab-lish since there is no dependable procedure forexamining the means by which one achieves elitecredentials. While mass esteem is an effectivebrake upon over-exploitation of position, itrewards scrupulously ethical and altruistic behav-ior much less than evidence of fellow-feelingwith the masses themselves.Under both systems, unscrupulous or disrep-

utable persons may become or remain membersof the elite, but for different reasons. In contestmobility, popular tolerance of a little craftiness inthe successful newcomer, together with the factthat he does not have to undergo the closescrutiny of the old elite, leaves considerable lee-way for unscrupulous success. In sponsoredmobility, the unpromising recruit reflects unfa-vorably on the judgments of his sponsors andthreatens the myth of elite omniscience; conse-quently he may be tolerated and others may“cover up” for his deficiencies in order to protectthe unified front of the elite to the outer world.


Certain of the general values and norms ofany society reflect emulation of elite values bythe masses. Under sponsored mobility, a gooddeal of the protective attitudes toward and inter-est in classical subjects percolates to themasses. Under contest mobility, however, thereis not the same degree of homogeneity of moral,aesthetic, and intellectual values to be emu-lated, so that the conspicuous attribute of theelite is its high level of material consumption—emulation itself follows this course. There isneither effective incentive nor punishment forthe elitist who fails to interest himself in pro-moting the arts or literary excellence, or whocontinues to maintain the vulgar manners andmode of speech of his class origin. The elite hasrelatively less power and the masses relativelymore power to punish or reward a man for hisadoption or disregard of any special elite cul-ture. The great importance of accent and ofgrammatical excellence in the attainment ofhigh status in England as contrasted with thetwangs and drawls and grammatical ineptitudeamong American elites is the most strikingexample of this difference. In a contest system,the class order does not function to support thequality of aesthetic, literary, and intellectualactivities; only those well versed in such mat-ters are qualified to distinguish authentic prod-ucts from cheap imitations. Unless those whoclaim superiority in these areas are forced tosubmit their credentials to the elite for evalua-tion, poor quality is often honored equally withhigh quality and class prestige does not serve tomaintain an effective norm of high quality.This is not to imply that there are no groups in

a “contest” society devoted to the protection andfostering of high standards in art, music, litera-ture, and intellectual pursuits, but that such stan-dards lack the support of the class system whichis frequently found when sponsored mobilityprevails. In California, the selection by officialwelcoming committees of a torch singer to enter-tain a visiting king and queen and “can-can”dancers to entertain Mr. Khrushchev illustrateshow American elites can assume that high pres-tige and popular taste go together.

FORMAL EDUCATION

Returning to the conception of an organizingideal norm, we assume that to the extent to whichone such norm of upward mobility is prevalent ina society there are constant strains to shape theeducational system into conformity with thatnorm. These strains operate in two fashions:directly, by blinding people to alternatives andcoloring their judgments of successful andunsuccessful solutions to recurring educationalproblems; indirectly, through the functionalinterrelationships between school systems andthe class structure, systems of social control, andother features of the social structure which areneglected in this [chapter].The most obvious application of the distinc-

tion between sponsored and contest mobilitynorms affords a partial explanation for thedifferent policies of student selection in theEnglish and American secondary schools.Although American high school students followdifferent courses of study and a few attend spe-cialized schools, a major educational preoccupa-tion has been to avoid any sharp social separationbetween the superior and inferior students and tokeep the channels of movement between coursesof study as open as possible. Recent criticismsof the way in which superior students may bethereby held back in their development usuallyare nevertheless qualified by the insistence thatthese students must not be withdrawn from themainstream of student life.13 Such segregationoffends the sense of fairness implicit in the con-test norm and also arouses the fear that the eliteand future elite will lose their sense of fellow-ship with the masses. Perhaps the most impor-tant point, however, is that schooling is presentedas an opportunity, and making use of it dependsprimarily on the student’s own initiative andenterprise.The English system has undergone a succession

of liberalizing changes during this century, but allof them have retained the attempt to sort out earlyin the educational program the promising from theunpromising so that the former may be segregatedand given a special form of training to fit them for


higher standing in their adult years. Under theEducation Act of 1944, a minority of students hasbeen selected each year by means of a battery ofexaminations popularly known as “eleven plus,”supplemented in varying degrees by grade schoolrecords and personal interviews, for admission togrammar schools.14 The remaining students attendsecondary modem or technical schools in whichthe opportunities to prepare for college or to trainfor the more prestigeful occupations are minimal.The grammar schools supply what by comparativestandards is a high quality of college preparatoryeducation. Of course, such a scheme embodies thelogic of sponsorship, with early selection of thosedestined for middle-class and higher-status occu-pations, and specialized training to prepare eachgroup for its destined class position. This planfacilitates considerable mobility, and recentresearch reveals surprisingly little bias againstchildren from manual laboring-class families inthe selection for grammar school, when related tomeasured intelligence.15 It is altogether possiblethat adequate comparative study would show acloser correlation of school success with measuredintelligence and a lesser correlation betweenschool success and family background in Englandthan in the United States. While selection of supe-rior students for mobility opportunity is probablymore efficient under such a system, the obstaclesfor persons not so selected of “making the grade”on the basis of their own initiative or enterprise areprobably correspondingly greater.That the contrasting effects of the two systems

accord with the social control patterns under thetwo mobility norms is indicated by studies ofstudent ambitions in the United States and inEngland. Researches in the United States consis-tently show that the general level of occupationalaspiration reported by high school students isquite unrealistic in relation to the actual distribu-tion of job opportunities. Comparative study inEngland shows much less “phantasy” aspiration,and specifically indicates a reduction in aspira-tions among students not selected followingthe “eleven-plus” examination.16 One of the by-products of the sponsorship system is the fact thatat least some students from middle-class families

whose parents cannot afford to send them toprivate schools suffer severe personal adjust-ment problems when they are assigned to sec-ondary modern schools on the basis of thisselection procedure.17

This well-known difference between theBritish sorting at an early age of students intogrammar and modern schools and the Americancomprehensive high school and junior college isthe clearest application of the distinction underdiscussion, but the organizing norms penetratemore deeply into the school systems than is ini-tially apparent. The most telling observationregarding the direct normative operation of theseprinciples would be evidence to support theauthor’s impression that major critics of educa-tional procedures within each country do notusually transcend the logic of their respectivemobility norms. Thus the British debate aboutthe best method for getting people sorted accord-ing to ability, without proposing that elite stationshould be open to whosoever can ascend to it.Although fear of “sputnik” in the United Statesintroduced a flurry of suggestions for sponsoredmobility schemes, the long-standing concern ofschool critics has been the failure to motivatestudents adequately. Preoccupation with motiva-tion appears to be an intellectual application ofthe folk idea that people should win their stationin society by personal enterprise.The functional operation of a strain toward

consistency with the organizing norms ofupward mobility may be illustrated by severalother features of the school systems in the twocountries. First, the value placed upon educationitself differs under the two norms. Under spon-sored mobility, schooling is valued for its culti-vation of elite culture, and those forms ofschooling directed toward such cultivation aremore highly valued than others. Education ofthe non-elite is difficult to justify clearly andtends to be half-hearted, while maximum educa-tional resources are concentrated on “those whocan benefit most from them”—in practice, thismeans those who can learn the elite culture.The secondary modern schools in England haveregularly suffered from less adequate financial


provision, a higher student-teacher ratio, fewerwell-trained teachers, and a general lack of pres-tige in comparison with the grammar schools.18

Under contest mobility in the United States,education is valued as a means of getting ahead,but the contents of education are not highly val-ued in their own right. Over a century agoTocqueville commented on the absence of anhereditary class “by which the labors of the intel-lect are held in honor.” He remarked that conse-quently a “middling standard is fixed in Americafor human knowledge.”19 And there persists insome measure the suspicion of the educated manas one who may have gotten ahead without reallyearning his position. In spite of recent criticismsof lax standards in American schools, it is inkeeping with the general mobility pattern that aGallup Poll taken in April, 1958, reports thatschool principals are much more likelyto make such criticisms than parents. While 90percent of the principals thought that “ourschools today demand too little work fromthe students,” only 51 percent of the parentsthought so, with 33 percent saying that the workwas about right and six percent that schoolsdemanded too much work.20

Second, the logic of preparation for a contestprevails in United States schools, and empha-sizes keeping everyone in the running until thefinal stages. In primary and secondary schoolsthe assumption tends to be made that those whoare learning satisfactorily need little specialattention while the less successful require help tobe sure that they remain in the contest and maycompete for the final stakes. As recently asDecember, 1958, a nationwide Gallup Poll gaveevidence that this attitude had not been radicallyaltered by the international situation. Whenasked whether or not teachers should devoteextra time to the bright students, 26 percent ofthe respondents replied “yes” and 67 percent,“no.” But the responses changed to 86 percent“yes” and only nine percent “no” when the ques-tion was asked concerning “slow students.”21

In western states the junior college offersmany students a “second chance” to qualify foruniversity, and all state universities have some

provision for substandard high school students toearn admission.The university itself is run like the true con-

test: standards are set competitively, students areforced to pass a series of trials each semester,and only a minority of the entrants achieve theprize of graduation. This pattern contrastssharply with the English system in which selec-tion is supposed to be relatively complete beforeentrance to university, and students may besubject to no testing whatsoever for the first yearor more of university study. Although universitycompletion rates have not been estimated accu-rately in either country, some figures are indica-tive of the contrast. In American institutions ofhigher learning in 1957–1958, the ratio of bach-elor’s and first-professional degrees to thenumber of first-time degree-credit enrollmentsin the fall four years earlier was reported to be.610 for men and .488 for women.22 The indi-cated 39 and 51 percent drop-out rates are prob-ably underestimates because transfers fromtwo-year junior colleges swell the number ofdegrees without being included in first-timeenrollments. In England, a study of the careers ofindividual students reports that in UniversityCollege, London, almost 82 percent of enteringstudents between 1948 and 1951 eventuallygraduated with a degree. A similar study a fewyears earlier at the University of Liverpool showsa comparative figure of almost 87 percent.23

Under contest mobility, the object is to train asmany as possible in the skills necessary for elitestatus so as to give everyone a chance to maintaincompetition at the highest pitch. Under spon-sored mobility, the objective is to indoctrinateelite culture in only those presumably who willenter the elite, lest there grow a dangerousnumber of “angry young men” who have eliteskills without elite station.Third, systems of mobility significantly affect

educational content. Induction into elite cultureunder sponsored mobility is consistent with anemphasis on school esprit de corps which isemployed to cultivate norms of intra-class loy-alty and elite tastes and manners. Similarly, for-mal schooling built about highly specialized


study in fields wholly of intellectual or aestheticconcern and of no “practical” value serves thepurpose of elite culture. Under contest mobilityin the United States, in spite of frequent facultyendorsement of “liberal education,” schoolingtends to be evaluated in terms of its practicalbenefits and to become, beyond the elementarylevel, chiefly vocational. Education does not somuch provide what is good in itself as thoseskills, especially vocational skills, presumed tobe necessary in the competition for the realprizes of life.These contrasts are reflected in the different

national attitudes toward university students whoare gainfully employed while in school. Morestudents in the United States than in Britain areemployed part-time, and relatively fewer of theAmerican students receive subsidies toward sub-sistence and living expenses. The most generousprograms of state aid in the United States, exceptthose applying to veterans and other specialgroups, do not normally cover expenses otherthan tuition and institutional fees. British main-tenance grants are designed to cover full livingexpenses, taking into account parental ability topay.24 Under sponsored mobility, gainful employ-ment serves no apprenticeship or testing func-tion, and is thought merely to prevent studentsfrom gaining the full benefit of their schooling.L. J. Parry speaks of the general opposition tostudent employment and asserts that English uni-versity authorities almost unanimously hold that“if a person must work for financial reasons, heshould never spend more than four weeks onsuch work during the whole year.”25

Under contest mobility, success in school workis not viewed as a sufficient test of practical merit,but must be supplemented by a test in the world ofpractical affairs. Thus in didactic folk tales theprofessional engineer also proves himself to be asuperior mechanic, the business tycoon a skillfulbehind-the-counter salesman. By “working hisway through school” the enterprising student“earns” his education in the fullest sense, keeps intouch with the practical world, and gains anapprenticeship into vocational life. Students areoften urged to seek part-time employment, even

when there is no financial need, and in someinstances schools include paid employment as arequirement for graduation. As one observerdescribes the typical American view, a studentwilling to work part-time is a “better bet” than“the equally bright student who receives all of hisfinancial support from others.”26

Finally, training in “social adjustment” ispeculiar to the system of contest mobility. Thereason for this emphasis is clear when it is under-stood that adjustment training presumably pre-pares students to cope with situations for whichthere are no rules of intercourse or for which therules are unknown, but in which the good opin-ions of others cannot be wholly ignored. Undersponsored mobility, elite recruits are inductedinto a homogeneous stratum within which thereis consensus regarding the rules, and withinwhich they succeed socially by mastering theserules. Under contest mobility, the elite aspirantmust relate himself both to the established eliteand to the masses, who follow different rules,and the elite itself is not sufficiently homoge-neous to evolve consensual rules of intercourse.Furthermore, in the contest the rules may varyaccording to the background of the competitor,so that each aspirant must successfully deal withpersons playing the game with slightly differentrules. Consequently, adjustment training isincreasingly considered to be one of the impor-tant skills imparted by the school system.27 Thatthe emphasis on such training has had genuinepopular support is indicated by a 1945 Fortunepoll in which a national sample of adults wasasked to select the one or two things that wouldbe very important for a son of theirs to get out ofcollege. Over 87 percent chose “Ability to getalong with and understand people,” and thisanswer was the most frequently chosen as thevery most important thing to get out of college.28

In this respect, British education may providebetter preparation for participation in an orderlyand controlled world, while American educationmay prepare students more adequately for a lessordered situation. The reputedly superior abilityof “Yankees” to get things done seems to implysuch ability.


To this point the discussion has centered onthe tax-supported school systems in both coun-tries, but the different place and emphasis of theprivately supported secondary schools can alsobe related to the distinction between sponsoredand contest mobility. Since private secondaryschools in both countries are principally vehi-cles for transmitting the marks of high familystatus, their mobility function is quite tangen-tial. Under contest mobility, the private schoolspresumably should have little or no mobilityfunction. On the other hand, if there is to bemobility in a sponsored system, the privatelycontrolled school populated largely with thechildren of elite parents would be the idealdevice through which to induct selectees fromlower levels into elite status. By means of ascholarship program, promising members oflesser classes could be chosen early for recruit-ment. The English “public” schools, in fact,have incorporated into their charters provisionsto insure that a few boys from lesser classes willenter each year. Getting one’s child into a“public” school, or even into one of the lessprestigeful private schools, assumes an impor-tance in England relatively unknown in theUnited States. If the children cannot win schol-arships the parents often make extreme finan-cial sacrifices in order to pay the cost of thisrelatively exclusive education.29

How much of a role private secondaryschools have played in mobility in eithercountry is difficult to determine. Americanstudies of social mobility usually omit informa-tion on private versus tax-supported secondaryschool attendance, and English studies showingthe advantage of “public” school attendancegenerally fail to distinguish between the mobileand the nonmobile in this respect. However,during the nineteenth century the English“public” schools were used by nouveaux richesmembers of the manufacturing classes to enabletheir sons to achieve unqualified elite status.30

In one sense, the rise of the manufacturingclasses through free enterprise introduced alarge measure of contest mobility which threat-ened to destroy the traditional sponsorship

system. But by using the “public” schools inthis fashion they bowed to the legitimacy of thetraditional system—an implicit acknowledge-ment that upward mobility was not completewithout sponsored induction. Dennis Broganspeaks of the task of the “public” schools in thenineteenth century as “the job of marrying theold English social order to the new.”31

With respect to mobility, the parallel betweenthe tax-supported grammar schools and the“public” schools in England is of interest. Theformer in important respects have been patternedafter the latter, adopting their view of mobilitybut making it a much larger part of their totalfunction. Generally, the grammar schools are thevehicle for sponsored mobility throughout themiddle ranges of the class system, modelled afterthe pattern of the “public” schools which remainthe agencies for sponsored mobility into theelite.

CONCLUSION: SUGGESTIONS FOR RESEARCH

The foregoing discussion is broadly impres-sionistic and speculative, reflecting more thegeneral impression of an observer of bothcountries than a systematic exploration ofdata. Relevant data of a variety of sorts arecited above, but their use is more illustrativethan demonstrative. However, several lines ofresearch are suggested by this tentative analy-sis. One of these is an exploration of differentchannels of mobility in both England and theUnited States in an attempt to discover the extentto which mobility corresponds to the mobilitytypes. Recruitment to the Catholic priesthood,for example, probably strictly follows a spon-sorship norm regardless of the dominant contestnorm in the United States.The effect of changes in the major avenues of

upward mobility upon the dominant normsrequires investigation. The increasing importanceof promotion through corporation hierarchiesand the declining importance of the entrepre-neurial path of upward mobility undoubtedlycompromise the ideal pattern of contest mobility.


The growing insistence that higher education is aprerequisite to more and more occupations is asimilar modification. Yet, there is little evidenceof a tendency to follow the logic of sponsorshipbeyond the bureaucratic selection process. Theprospect of a surplus of college-educated personsin relation to jobs requiring college educationmay tend to restore the contest situation at ahigher level, and the further possibility that com-pletion of higher education may be more deter-mined by motivational factors than by capacitysuggests that the contest pattern continues withinthe school.In England, on the other hand, two develop-

ments may weaken the sponsorship system. Oneis positive response to popular demand to allowmore children to secure the grammar schooltype of training, particularly by including sucha program in the secondary modern school. Theother is introduction of the comprehensive sec-ondary school; relatively uncommon at presentbut a major plank in the labour party’s educa-tion platform, it remains to be determinedwhether the comprehensive school in Englandwill take a distinctive form and serve a distinc-tive function, which preserves the pattern ofsponsorship, or will approximate the presentAmerican system.Finally, the assertion that these types of

mobility are embedded in the genuine folknorms requires specific investigation. Here, acombination of direct study of popular attitudesand content analysis of popular responses to cru-cial issues would be useful. Perhaps the most sig-nificant search would be for evidence showingwhat courses of action require no special justifi-cation or explanation because they are altogether“natural” and “right,” and what courses of action,whether approved or not, require special justifi-cation and explanation. Such evidence, appropri-ately used, would show the extent to which thepatterns described are genuine folk norms ratherthan mere by-products of particular structuralfactors. It would also permit determination of theextent to which acceptance of the folk norms isdiffused among the different segments of thepopulations.

NOTES

1. A comprehensive summary of such studiesappears in Seymour M. Lipset and Reinhard Bend ix.Social Mobility in Industrial Society, Berkeley andLos Angeles: University of California Press.

2. Cf. C. A. Anderson, “The Social Status ofUniversity Students in Relation to Type of Economy:Art International Comparison,” Transactions of theThird World Congress of Sociology, London, 1956,vol. V, pp. 51–63; J. E. Floud, Social Class andEducational Opportunity, London: Heinemarm, 1956;W. L. Warner, R. J. Havighurst, and M. B. Loeb, WhoShall Be Educated? NewYork: Harper, 1944.

3. Reference is made throughout the chapter to“elite” and “masses.” The generalizations, however,are intended to apply throughout the stratification con-tinuum to relations between members of a given classand the class or classes above it. Statements aboutmobility are intended in general to apply to mobilityfrom manual to middle-class levels, lower-middle toupper-middle class, and so on, as well as into thestrictly elite groups. The simplified expressions avoidthe repeated use of cumbersome and involved state-ments which might otherwise be required.

4. The normative element in an organizing normgoes beyond Max Weber’s ideal type, conveying moreof the sense of Durkheim’s collective representation;cf. Ralph H. Turner, “The Normative Coherence of FolkConcepts,” Research Studies of the State College ofWashington, 25 (1957), pp. 127–136. Charles Wagleyhas developed a similar concept which he calls “ideal pat-tern” in his as yet unpublished work on Brazilian kinship.See also Howard Becker, “Constructive Typology inthe Social Sciences,” American Sociological Review, 5(February 1940), pp. 40–55.

5. Geoffrey Gorer remarks on the favorable eval-uation of the successful gamble in American culture:“Gambling is also a respected and important compo-nent in many business ventures. Conspicuousimprovement in a man’s financial position is generallyattributed to a lucky combination of industry, skill,and gambling, though the successful gambler prefersto refer to his gambling as ‘vision.’” The AmericanPeople (NewYork: Norton, 1948), p. 178.

6. Vilfredo Pareto, The Mind and Society(New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1935), vol. 4, p. 1796.

7. Many writers have noted that different kinds ofsocieties facilitate the rise of different kinds of person-alities, either in the stratification hierarchy or in otherways. Cf. Jessie Bernard, American Community


Behavior (NewYork: Dryden, 1949), p. 205. A partic-ularly interesting statement is Martindale’s explorationof “favored personality” types in sacred and secularstudies. Don Martindale and Elio Monachesi, Elementsof Sociology (NewYork: Harper, 1951), pp. 312–378.

8. At one time in the United States a good manyowners of expensive British Jaguar automobiles car-ried large signs on the cars identifying the make. Sucha display would have been unthinkable under a spon-sored mobility system since the Jaguar owner wouldnot care for the esteem of persons too uninformed totell a Jaguar from a less prestigious automobile.

9. See, e.g., Lawrence Lipton, TheHoly Barbarians(NewYork: Messner, 1959).

10. Cf. Albert K. Cohen, Delinquent Boys: TheCulture of the Gang (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1955).

11. D. V. Glass, editor, Social Mobility in Britain(Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1954), pp. 144–145, reportsstudies showing only small variations in intelligencebetween occupational levels.

12. Gorer, op. cit., pp. 172–187.13. See, e.g., Los Angeles Times (May 4, 1959),

p. I, Part 24.14. The nature and operation of the “eleven-plus”

system are fully reviewed in a report by a committeeof the British Psychological Society and in a report ofextensive research into the adequacy of selectionmethods. See P. E. Vernon, editor, Secondary SchoolSelection: A British Psychological Inquiry (London:Methuen, 1957); and Alfred Yates and D. A. Pidgeon,Admission to Grammar Schools (London: NewnesEducational Publishing Co., 1957).

15. J. E. Floud, A. H. Halsey, and F. M. Martin,Social Class and Educational Opportunity (London:Heinemann, 1956).

16. Mary D. Wilson documents the reduction inaspirations characterizing students in British sec-ondary modern schools and notes the contrast withAmerican studies revealing much more “unrealistic”aspirations; see “The Vocational Preferences ofSecondary Modern School-children,” British Journalof Educational Psychology, 23 (1953), pp. 97–113.See also Ralph H. Turner, “The Changing Ideology ofSuccess,” Transactions of the Third World Congressof Sociology, 1956, London, vol. V, esp. p. 37.

17. Pointed out by Hilde Himmelweit in privatecommunication.

18. Less adequate financial provision and a higherstudent-teacher ratio are mentioned as obstacles toparity of secondary modern schools with grammar

schools in The Times Educational Supplement(February 22, 1957), p. 241. On difficulties in achiev-ing prestige comparable with grammar schools, seeG. Baron, “Secondary Education in Britain: SomePresent-Day Trends.” Teachers College Record, 57(January 1956), pp. 211–221; and O. Banks, Parityand Prestige in English Secondary Education(London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1955). See alsoVernon, op. cit., pp. 19–22.

19. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America(NewYork: Knopf, 1945), vol. I, p. 52.

20. An earlier Gallup Poll has disclosed that62 percent of the parents opposed stiffened collegeentrance requirements while only 27 percent favoredthem. Reported in Time (April 14, 1958), p. 45.

21. Reported in theLosAngeles Times, December 17,1958, Part I, p. 16.

22. U. S. Department of Health, Education, andWelfare, Office of Education, Earned DegreesConferred by Higher Education Institutions, 1957-1958, Washington, D.C.: Government PrintingOffice, 1959, p. 3.

23. Nicholas Malleson, “Student Performance atUniversity College, London, 1948-1951,” UniversitiesQuarterly, 12 (May, 1958), pp. 288-319.

24. See, e.g., C. A. Quattlebaum, Federal Aid toStudents for Higher Education, Washington, D.C.:Government Printing Office, 1956; and “Grants toStudents: University and Training Colleges,” TheTimes Educational Supplement, May 6, 1955, p. 446.

25. “Students’ Expenses,” The Times EducationalSupplement, May 6, 1955, p. 447.

26. R. H. Eckelberry, “College Jobs for CollegeStudents,” Journal of Higher Education, 27 (March,1956), p. 174.

27. Adjustment training is not a necessary accom-paniment of contest mobility. The shift during the lasthalf century toward the increased importance of socialacceptability as an elite credential has brought suchtraining into correspondingly greater prominence.

28. Reported in Hadley Cantril, editor, PublicOpinion 1935–1946. Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress, 1951, p. 186.

29. For one account of the place of “public”schools in the English educational system, see DennisBrogen, The English People. NewYork: Knopf, 1943,pp. 18–56.

30. A. H. Halsey of Birmingham University hascalled my attention to the importance of this fact.

31. Op. cit., pp. 24–25.


4STATUS ATTAINMENT PROCESSESARCHIBALD O. HALLER AND ALEJANDRO PORTES

23

INTRODUCTION

Statuses are inequalities among social units, suchas persons or families, which are more or lessinstitutionalized within the larger social system.These inequalities occur in most societies along aplurality of basic dimensions. Three such dimen-sions come closest to being regarded univer-sally as bases for status systems: wealth, power,and prestige (Runciman, 1968; Haller, 1970).Abstract hierarchies represented by these dimen-sions are operationalized in social life by abroader set of specific status variables. Theyinclude, among others, income and property,political influence, prestige in the occupationaldomain, and generalized esteem in the commu-nity. Of these, for reasons explained below, thevariable most commonly focused upon is occupa-tion and, more specifically, occupational prestige(Duncan, Featherman, and Duncan, 1972; Hodge,Siegel, and Rossi, 1966). Also employed as statusindicators, though less frequently than occupa-tion, are income (Miller, 1966), general wealth(Lampman, 1962), and reputational prestige andinfluence in the community (Warner andLunt, 1941;

Lehman, 1969; Walton, 1971). Education hasbeen proposed as a fourth basic status dimension(Svalastoga, 1965). Education, however, seems tolack the abstractness and universality of the firstthree hierarchies, its formal importance beinglimited to relatively modern societies (Haller,1970). Concern for education in the study ofstratification systems seems better justified by itsincreasingly important role as determinant ofpositions in subsequent variables directly repre-senting differences in wealth, power, and prestige(Rosen, Crockett, and Nunn, 1969).Among many study areas to which the perma-

nent fact of social inequality has given rise, theproblem of “movement” along status dimensionshas few rivals in the amount of interest it haselicited. Two focal points of concern have been theextent to which ascriptive factors at birth deter-mine subsequent levels of achievement and theextent to which initial positions of individuals inthe stratification system influence their positionsat later points in time. The initial impetus providedby Sorokin’s (1927) plea for empirical researchinstead of speculation in this area was followed bynearly three decades in which the above issues

SOURCE: Archibald O. Haller and Alejandro Portes, “Status Attainment Processes,” Sociology of Education, Vol. 46, No. 1(Winter, 1973), pp. 51-91.

were approached under the labels inter- and intra-generational mobility, respectively.Research on mobility has been useful in pro-

viding descriptions of the extent and direction ofpopulation movements along different statusdimensions in particular societies. Comparingrates of upward and downward mobility betweendifferent societies has given rise in turn toinsightful theorizing about societal causes of sta-tic versus changing inequalities and the socialand political consequences of these alternativesituations (Lipset and Bendix, 1959).However, for the most part there is a paucity of

causal explanations of mobility at the individuallevel. The magnetism exercised on researchers bythe mobility problem has meant almost exclusiveconcentration on description—analysis of con-ventional mobility matrices per se—to theneglect of explanation—study of the possibledeterminants of observed status movements.Analysis of the causes and consequences ofmobility within a society has been handicapped,in addition, by use of a “difference score”between parental or individual initial positionsand present ones to represent direction and dis-tance of status movement. Because such a score isnot a simple measure but a composite of initialand terminal positions, its statistical manipulationis fraught with difficulties. As noted by Blau andDuncan (1967), causal influences on parental orearly individual positions (and their impact onmobility scores) may not be identical with thoseon terminal ones. Identical mobility scores maybe the result of quite different causal configura-tions making simple, homogenous explanationsinappropriate. Moreover, initial parental or indi-vidual status is not causally indifferent to finaloutcomes. Their impact on later attainment—reflected in consistently sizable correlations—means that mobility in either direction varies indegree of difficulty with its starting point: thereare few chances of downward mobility forchildren of those at the bottom of the stratifica-tion ladder and equally restricted opportunitiesfor upward movement among offsprings of thoseat the top. Interpretation of statistical resultsbased on mobility as a difference score runs into

the constant risk of confusing substantive find-ings with those due to an inevitable regressiontoward the mean (Blau and Duncan, 1967).Given the present ambiguities in nomencla-

ture, a new term is in order. “Status attain-ment” seems to us to avoid the pitfalls ofdifference scores and premature conclusionsconcerning the role of motivation. It is spe-cific enough to draw attention only to changesin the status of persons, yet is general enoughto cover all such processes, including inter-generational status transmission. Throughoutthe remainder of this paper, we will employ“status attainment processes” to refer to thosesets of events by which individuals come tooccupy their positions in the social hierarchiesof wealth, power, and prestige. The plural“processes” calls attention to two aspects.First, different societies may have quite differ-ent sets of events leading to status attainment.The well-known comparison between theAmerican system of “contest” attainment andthe British system of “sponsored” attainmentfurnishes a good example of these differences(Turner, 1960). Second, status attainmentwithin specific societies tends to occur as anet result of several quite different sets ofevents. This applies to both the particular sta-tus which is attained and the causal processesleading to it. This paper attempts to summa-rize what is now known about status attain-ment processes in the United States today. Itmay be convenient to state here reasons foremploying occupational status as the mainattainment variable to be explained.In sum, the place of status attainment

research in the study of social stratification liesin the effort to specify the causal sequencethrough which individuals reach their positionsin status hierarchies. Status attainment researchseeks to identify those basic factors describingthe persons and their situations which accountfor whatever status locations they come tooccupy. Knowledge of these causal inputs mayallow prediction of eventual status outcomesfor different categories of individuals. While aplurality of social hierarchies offers alternative


foci for the study of attainment, it is occupa-tion, among readily measured status variables,which is most strategic and which is bestknown. Finally, study of individual attainmentmust take into account the changing structureof status systems within which these processestake place.The sections below present, in summary fash-

ion, what is known on the basis of empiricalresearch of causal sequences through which sta-tus attainment takes place. Discussion is limitedto American society because it is here that themain research has been conducted. Two suchmodels exist today. We shall call one the“Wisconsin model” and the other the “Blau-Duncan model.” One, the Blau-Duncan model, ismost precisely concerned with status transmis-sion. Both are grounded solidly in carefulresearch using extensive samples. The followingdiscussion will aim at clarifying:

1. The dissimilar theoretical orientations buteventual complementarity of the two basicmodels presented;

2. The relative usefulness of each as analysis isfocused on general objective determinants oron more specific psychological factors;

3. The limitations of both approaches and, byextension, lines of viable research for thefuture.

MODELS OF STATUS ATTAINMENT

Research on status attainment processes in theU.S. has been conducted along different theoret-ical paths. The two models outlined in thissection are not the only ones developed, but theyare representative of the two main orientationswhich sociological thought has followed. Bothare based on large data sets and both haveemployed path analysis as a form of presentation.Best known among causal theories of status

attainment is Blau and Duncan’s (1967) model. It isbased on data collected from a single cross-sectionalsample of the American adult male population aspart of the Bureau of Census’ “Current PopulationSurvey” of March, 1962. Strictly speaking, the con-cern of the model is status transmission, or theextent to which ascribed positions relate to subse-quent attainment. As such, Blau and Duncan’smodel essentially is an attempt to reconceptualizeclassic questions of mobility research within a moreuseful analytic framework. That is, they focus upon:

1. The extent to which inherited status determinesthe social fate of individuals.

2. The extent to which earlier positions in statushierarchies affect later levels of attainment.

Their answers are portrayed graphically in a pathmodel reproduced in Diagram 1.

Status Attainment Processes • 25

.310

.279.516

.224 .818

.440

.859U

W

Y

X

V .394 .753

.281

Diagram 1 Blau-Duncan Model of Status Attainment

NOTE: U = respondent’s education; V = father’s education; W = respondent’s first job; X = father’s occupation;Y = respondent’spresent occupation (in 1962).

Basically, the model says that while parentalpositions exercise some signif icant directeffects, their primary influence on occupationalattainment is indirect via educational level.Education affects both early and late occupa-tional attainment while the former also has asizable effect on the latter. The greater impor-tance of education-mediated influence vis-à-visdirect parental effects is illustrated further bypartitioning gross effects of parental statusvariables into their direct and indirect compo-nents. As presented in Table 4.1, only the effectof father’s occupation on initial occupationshows roughly equal direct and indirect com-ponents. In all other cases, direct effects onoccupational attainment are much smaller thanthose mediated first by education and then byinitial occupation.Variables included in this model are of an

“objective” positional nature for which reli-able measures are available. All were alreadypresent in conventional mobility research. Themajor contribution of the model thus consistsof systematizing causal relationships obscuredby usage of mobility “difference scores.” Restric-tion of the theory to these variables means,however, that further questions concerningthe f iner mechanisms through which statusattainment takes place are not answered.Crucial among them:

1. What are the mediating processes by whichparental status affects educational and, to alesser extent, occupational attainment?

2. In what specific ways are mental ability andacademic performance related to statusattainment?

Answers to these questions require examina-tion of causal processes at a more specific socialpsychological level. It is obvious, for example,that father’s occupation does not affect educa-tional and occupational attainments directly. Whatfather’s occupation “means” in terms of the set ofinfluences it can bring to bear on offspring’s atti-tudes and cognitions and how these in turn affectattainment-oriented behavior comprise crucialaspects for study if adequate understanding of thedynamics of status attainment is to be reached.To explore these questions is to enter the less

“safe” realm of social psychological variables. Itis also, however, to face a challenging scientificendeavor since specification of mediating mech-anisms can enrich a causal model based onobjective variables.The second model of status attainment, pre-

sented below, departs from a social psychologi-cal orientation. Its basic features were developedby a group of researchers originally affiliated withthe University of Wisconsin (Sewell, Haller, andPortes, 1969; Sewell, Haller, and Ohlendorf, 1970;


Table 4.1 Indirect and Direct Effects of Parental Status Variables on Occupational Attainment

Effects

Gross Direct Indirect

Father’s Occupation on Early Occupation .417 .224 .193

Father’s Education on Early Occupation .332 .017 .315

Father’s Occupation on 1962 Occupation .405 .115 .290

Father’s Education on 1962 Occupation .322a 0 .327a

SOURCE: Adapted from Blau and Duncan (1967).

NOTE: N = 20,700 (approx.)

a. Differences are due to the effects of rounding.

Woelfel and Haller, 1971). The data set was col-lected by Little (1958) and Sewell (1971) from aone-third random sample ofWisconsin’s male highschool seniors in 1957. Information was obtainedat that time on parental status, area of residence,and other objective variables as well as on moresubjective factors such as significant others’ influ-ence and respondent’s educational and occupationalaspirations. Eighty-nine per cent of the sample wasreinterviewed in 1964–65 to ascertain educationaland early occupational attainments.The Wisconsin model was first used to describe

data on the subsample of farm residents (Sewell,Haller, and Portes, 1969). Subsequently it wasapplied to respondents in five different residentialareas—farm, village, small city, medium city, andlarge city—as well as to the total sample—in orderto ascertain whether original results were specific tothe farm population (Sewell, Haller, and Ohlendorf,1970). This test supported the initial model withslight modifications. The final model is presentedin Diagram 2. Path coefficients (beta weights) foreach residential area are presented in Table 4.2. Asthese results show, the causal model applies in sim-ilar fashion across different residential categories.Themodel is parsimonious, involving thirteen of the

possible twenty-six paths among variables arrangedin this causal order. Evidence in support of thisrestriction is provided by comparing variation independent variables accounted for by the model(R2s) versus that explained when all possible pathsare included. The two sets of figures—for each res-idential area and the total sample—are presented inTable 4.2. As can be seen, increases in explainedvariation due to these additional paths are, in almostall cases, of little consequence.Total explained variation in early occupational

attainment (X1) is forty per cent and in educa-tional attainment (X2) fifty-seven per cent. Thesefigures compare with thirty-three per cent of vari-ation accounted for in early occupational attain-ment (W) and twenty-six per cent in educationalattainment (U) by the Blau-Duncan model.Both models came to identical conclusions

regarding the causal order of comparable statusvariables. Early occupational attainment isdefined, in both cases, as primarily a functionof prior education. Educational and, to a lesserextent, occupational attainments, in turn, areviewed as causally dependent on parental sta-tus. The Wisconsin model attempts, however, tocomplement this general model by a series of


XY

X7

X8 X6 X4

X2 X1

XU

XVXX

.768.792

.654

.508.457

.218

.627

.808

.826

.589

.288

.246

.227 .152.778

.522.218

.261

.441

.179 .320

XWXZ

X3X5

Diagram 2 The Wisconsin Model of Educational and Early Occupational Attainment

NOTE: X1 = occupational attainment; X2 = educational attainment; X3 = level of occupational aspiration; X4 = level of educationalaspiration; X5 = significant others’ influence; X6 = academic performance; X7 = socioeconomic status; X8 = mental ability.


Table 4.2Path Coefficients and Coefficients of Determination for Final Wisconsin Model and for ThatIncluding All Possible Paths: Five Residence Categories and Total Sample

Independent Variables

X2

EdAttX3

LOAX4

LEAX5

SOIX6

APX7

SESX8

MA R2 R2

Farm N = 857

X1—OccAtt .553 .139 .415 .433

X2—EdAtt .434 .202 .240 .519 .539

X3—LOA .376 .275 .315 .333

X4—LEA .432 .234 .338 .352

X5—SOI .388 .174 .106 .263 .263

X6—AP .630 .397 .397

Village N = 816

X1—OccAtt .565 .105 .404 .410

X2—EdAtt .458 .193 .237 .563 .569

X3—LOA .414 .314 .394 .403

X4—LEA .497 .253 .432 .445

X5—SOI .367 .247 .070 .292 .292

X6—AP .673 .453 .458

Small City N = 1094

X1—OccAtt .508 .096 .328 .340

X2—EdAtt .476 .204 .232 .602 .628

X3—LOA .394 .304 .365 .388

X4—LEA .497 .260 .441 .463

X5—SOI .300 .236 .217 .341 .341

X6—AP .602 .363 .366

hypotheses specifying mediating variables andpaths through which initial status variables influ-ence later ones. Direct effects of parental statuson educational and occupational attainments arefound to disappear when intervening factors areconsidered. Indirect parental status effects occurprimarily through significant others’ influences(X5) as the latter affects the formation of statusaspirations (X3, X4) and acts directly on educa-tional attainment.The model in fact says that practically all the

effect that family’s socioeconomic status has on aperson’s educational and occupational attainmentis due to its impact on the types of attainment-related personal influences that the person receivesin his adolescence. The measure of significantothers’ influence employed on theWisconsin sam-ple1 suggests that this impact includes, but is notexhausted by, direct parental influence on the for-mation of status aspirations. The family’s socioe-conomic position also sets limits on the pool ofpotential significant others confronted by the indi-vidual and the nature of their orientations. Itaffects, for example, the class and general back-ground of possible friends and hence the likeli-hood of their having and conveying college plans.In sum, two theoretical models emerging from

the main currents of empirical research on statusattainment have been presented. The first,employing objective status variables, is concernedprimarily with status transmission. The second,employing objective and social psychologicalvariables, is concerned primarily with the dynam-ics of status attainment. Variables shared by thetwo models—parental status, educational andearly occupational attainment—are arranged inthe same causal order and yield similar empiricalresults. Thus, the main contribution of the secondmodel is not in challenging conclusions reachedby the first, but rather in clarifying the processesthrough which causal influence of earlier statusvariables on later ones occurs. Direct effects ofparental status variables on educational and occu-pational attainment in the first causal modelare shown by the second to be entirely mediatedby formation of educational and occupational

aspirations and the impact of significant others’influences on this process.In other words, when we look at both systems

as status transmission models we find that theyyield similar results, except that the Wisconsinmodel includes a set of social psychologicalmediating variables while the Blau-Duncanmodel does not.As in the case of Blau and Duncan’s theory, the

Wisconsin model does not contain any radicallynew conceptions but rather summarizes in a sys-tematic fashion well-established notions in socialpsychology and stratification research as theyimpinge on the process of status attainment. Mostimportant among them: (1) The forceful impact ofinterpersonal influence on the formation of atti-tudes and their behavioral enactment. This is por-trayed by the strong direct effects of significantothers’ influence on educational and occupationalaspirations and its smaller direct effect on educa-tional attainment. (2) The role of self-reflexiveaction in the adjustment of status aspirations tomore or less conform to perceived ability (Woelfeland Haller, 1971a). (3) The basic role of statusaspirations, as antecedents of educational andoccupational attainment. These observations arein agreement with results of most past research inthe area (Kahl, 1953; Herriott, 1963; Alexanderand Campbell, 1964; Duncan, Haller, and Portes,1968).It is the last set of variables which constitutes

the strategic center of the model.Aspirations medi-ate most of the influence of antecedent factors onstatus attainment. Even when educational attain-ment is taken into account, occupational aspira-tions still exercise a significant direct effect onoccupational attainment.The execution of occupational and educational

aspirations appears to be a central process in earlyadult status attainment, not only because it repre-sents a clear expressive orientation toward desir-able goals but also because it is likely to involve arealistic appraisal of possibilities conveyed to egoby significant others and his own self-evaluations.The hypothesized impact of aspirations on statusattainment does not mean that all or most specific


goals must be fulfilled but, more generally, thatinitial plans set limits to the range where eventualattainment levels are likely to be found.

NOTE

1. Significant others’ influence was measured bya summated index of three variables: parental encour-agement toward college, teachers’ encouragementtoward college, and best friend’s college plans. Thesevariables are moderately inter-correlated. Familysocioeconomic status (X7) correlates significantlywith all three. Further details on measurement arefound in the original sources: Sewell, Haller, Portes,1969 and Sewell, Haller, Ohlendorf, 1970. (Sewell,Hauser, and Shah, unpublished, are currently disag-gregating the multi-item indexes and are assessingtheir effects on subsequent variables.)

REFERENCES

Alexander, C. Norman, and Ernest Q. Campbell. 1964“Peer influences on adolescent educational aspi-rations and attainments.” American SociologicalReview 29 (August):568-575.

Blau, Peter M., and Otis Dudley Duncan. 1967 TheAmerican Occupational Structure. New York:Wiley.

Boerger, Paul H. 1970 “The Relations of Boys’Intellectual Achievement Behavior to ParentalInvolvement, Aspirations and Accuracy of IQEstimate.” Unpublished dissertation. Universityof Minnesota.

Davis, Kingsley, and Wilbert E. Moore. 1945 “Someprinciples of stratification.” American SociologicalReview 10 (April):242-249.

Duncan, Otis Dudley. 1961 “A socioeconomicindex for all occupations.” Pp. 109-138 in AlbertJ. Reiss, Jr., et al., (eds.), Occupations and SocialStatus. NewYork: Free Press.

Duncan, Otis Dudley, David L. Featherman, and BeverlyDuncan. 1972 Socioeconomic Background andAchievement. NewYork: Seminar Press.

Duncan, Otis Dudley, Archibald 0. Haller, andAlejandro Portes. 1968 “Peer influences on aspi-rations: A reinterpretation.” American Journal ofSociology 74 (September): 119-137.

Featherman, David L. 1971 “A social structural modelfor the socioeconomic career.” American Journalof Sociology 77 (September): 293-304.

Gasson, Ruth M., Archibald 0. Haller, and William H.Sewell. 1972 Attitudes and Facilitation in StatusAttainment. Arnold M. and Carolyn RoseMonograph Series in Sociology. Washington,D.C.: The American Sociological Association.

Haller, Archibald 0. 1970 “Changes in the structure ofstatus systems.” Rural Sociology 35 (December):469-487.

Haller, Archibald O., and Irwin W. Miller. 1971 TheOccupational Aspiration Scale. Cambridge,Mass.: Schenkman.

Haller, Archibald 0., and William H. Sewell. 1967“Occupational choices of Wisconsin farm boys.”Rural Sociology 32 (March):37-55.

Haller, Archibald O., and Joseph Woelfel. 1972“Significant others and their expectations: con-cepts and instruments to measure interpersonalinfluence status aspirations.” Rural Sociology 35(December):591-621.

Henmon,V.A. C., andM. J. Nelson. 1942 The Henmon-Nelson Test of Mental Ability. Boston: HoughtonMifflin Company.

Herriott, Robert E. 1963 “Some social determinants ofeducational aspiration.” Harvard EducationalReview (Spring):157-177.

Hodge, Robert W., Paul M. Siegel, and Peter H. Rossi.1966 “Occupational prestige in the United States:1925-1963.” Pp. 322-334 in Reinhard Bendix andSeymour Martin Lipset (eds.), Class, Status andPower: Social Stratification in ComparativePerspective. NewYork: Free Press.

Hyman, Herbert, and Elanor Singer (eds.). 1968Readings and Reference Group Theory andResearch. NewYork: The Free Press.

Kahl, Joseph A. 1953 “Educational and occupationalaspirations of ‘Common Man’ boys.” HarvardEducational Review (Spring): 186-203.

Kelly, Harold H. 1968 “Two functions of referencegroups.” Pp. 77-83 in Herbert Hyman and ElanorSinger (eds.), Readings and Reference GroupTheory and Research. NewYork: The Free Press.

Knudsen, Dean D. 1969 “The declining status ofwomen: popular myths and the failure of func-tionalist thought.” Social Forces (December):183-193.

Lampman, Robert J. 1962 The Share of the Top Wealth-holders in National Wealth. Princeton, NewJersey: Princeton University Press.


Landecker, Werner S. 1970 “Status congruence, classcrystallization, and social cleavage.” Sociologyand Social Research 54 (April):343-355.

Lehman, Edward W. 1969 “Toward a macrosociologyof power.” American Sociological Review 34(August):453-465.

Lewin, Kurt. 1951 “Formalization and progress in psy-chology.” Pp. 1-29 in Dorwin Cartwright (ed.), FieldTheory in Social Science: Selected TheoreticalPapers by Kurt Lewin. NewYork: Harper.

Lipset, Seymour, and Reinhard Bendix. 1959 SocialMobility in Industrial Society. Berkeley: Universityof California Press.

Little, J. Kenneth. 1958 A Statewide Inquiry IntoDecisions of Youth About Education BeyondHigh School. Madison: University of Wisconsin,School of Education.

McClelland, David C. 1961 The Achieving Society.NewYork: Free Press.

Miller, Herman P. 1966 Income Distribution in theUnited States. A 1960 Census Monograph.Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Parsons, Talcott, and Edward A. Shils. 1951 “Values,motives and systems of action.” Pp. 47-275 inToward a General Theory of Action. Cambridge,Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Rosen, Bernard C. 1959 “Race, ethnicity, and theachievement syndrome.” American SociologicalReview 24 (February):47-60.

Rosen, Bernard C., Harry J. Crockett, Jr., and Clyde Z.Nunn. 1969 Achievement in American Society.Cambridge, Massachusetts: Schenkman.

Rosen, Bernard C., and Roy G. D’Adrade. 1959 “Thepsychosocial origins of achievement motivation.”Sociometry 22 (September): 185-218.

Rosenthal, Robert, and Lenore Jacobson. 1968Pygmalion in the Classroom: Teacher Expectationand Pupils’ Intellectual Development. New York:Holt, Reinhart and Winston.

Runciman, W. G. 1968 “Class, status, and power?”Pp. 25-61 in J. A. Jackson (ed.), Social Stratifi-cation. London: Cambridge University Press.

Sewell, William H. 1971 “Inequality of opportunityfor higher education.” American SociologicalReview 36 (October):793-809.

Sewell, William H., and J. Michael Armer. 1966“Neighborhood context and college plans.”American Sociological Review 31 (April):159-168.

Sewell, William H., Archibald 0. Haller, and GeorgeW. Ohlendorf. 1970 “The educational and early

occupational attainment process: replications andrevisions.” American Sociological Review 35(December): 1014-1027.

Sewell, William H., Archibald 0. Haller, andAlejandroPortes. 1967 “Educational and occupationalachievements of Wisconsin farm boys.” Paperpresented at the meetings of the AmericanSociological Association, San Francisco.

Sewell, William H., Archibald 0. Haller, and AlejandroPortes. 1969 “The educational and early occupa-tional attainment process.” American SociologicalReview 34 (February):82-92.

Sewell, William H., Robert M. Hauser, and Vimal P.Shah. n.d. Social Status and Higher Education.Unpublished.

Sorokin, Pitirim. 1927 Social Mobility. New York:Harper.

Svalastoga, Kaare. 1965 Social Differentiation. NewYork:David McKay.

Treiman, Donald J. 1970 “Industrialization and socialstratification.” Pp. 207-234 in Edward 0.Laumann (ed.), Social Stratification Researchand Theory for the 1970s. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

Turner, Ralph H. 1960 “Sponsored and contest mobilityand the school system.” American SociologicalReview 25 (December):855-867.

Walton, John. 1971 “A methodology for the compara-tive study of power: Some conceptual and proce-dural applications.” Social Science Quarterly 52(June):39-60.

Warner, W. Lloyd, and Paul S. Lunt. 1941 TheSocial Life of a Modern Community. NewYork:Yale.

Weber, Max. 1946 “Class, Status, and Party.” Pp. 180-195 in Hans H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (eds.),From Max Weber. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Woelfel, Joseph, and Archibald 0. Haller. 1971a“Significant others, the self-reflexive act and theattitude formation process.” American SociologicalReview 36 (February):74-87.

Woelfel, Joseph, and Archibald 0. Haller. 1971b“Reply to Land, Henry and Hummon.” AmericanSociological Review 36 (December): 1102-1103.

Woelfel, Joseph. 1972 “Significant others and theirrole relationships to students in a high schoolpopulation.” Rural Sociology 37 (March):86-97.

Yinger, Milton. 1965 Toward a Field Theory ofBehavior. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.


Documents

PART I - SAGE Publications · PART I THEORETICAL AND HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES 1 C ontemporary sociological research relies on theoretical perspectives to help inform analysis. Theory