Encyclopedia of Sociology Vol

Table 2

the overall quality of life. It is defined as ‘‘the number of years a newborn infant would live if prevailing patterns of mortality at the time of its birth were to stay the same throught its life’’ (World Bank 1998: 19). The GNP per capita measures the economic aspect of progress. Infant death is the final biological expression of a process that is determined basically by the economic and social structure of a country of region. These conditions influence the occurrence and spread of disease as well as quality and availability of health care facilities, all of which are crucial to survival probabilities. The structural determinants are mediated at the family level, because the child’s growth and development are heavily dependent on the living conditions of the family.

Intervening Variables. The intervening variables include urbanization of population in urban areas, industrialization of labor force in nonagricultural activities, and annual population growth rate. Time-lag path analysis is used to investigate

the direct and indirect effects of education at an earlier time (e.g., 1970) on socioeconomic development at the later time (e.g., 1990), after controlling for urbanization, population growth rate, and industrialization. Specifically, two models will be examined. The first model uses 1970 data for the independent variables, 1980 data for the intervening variables, and 1990 data for the dependent variables. The second model examines the periods between 1980 and 1996. That is, I use 1980 data for the independent variables, 1990 data for the intervening variables, and the 1996 data for the dependent variables. For both analyses, the unit of analysis is country.

Research Method. Path analysis will be used to study the proposed model. The path coefficient represents the standardized regression coefficient. The standardized regression coefficient (ß) represents the change in the standard deviation of the dependent variable associated with one standard deviation of change in the independent variable, when all other variables are controlled for.

The coefficient of alienation (defined as the square root of 1−R2) is also provided to show how well each development indicator is predicted by all the independent variables. A larger coefficient of alienation indicates that the development model has a smaller R2 or coefficient of determination. On the other hand, if a development model has a smaller coefficient of alienation, then the independent variables in that model explain more variation in that development indicator.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Descriptive Statistics. Table 2 presents means, standard deviations, the minimum values, and the

maximum values for all variables used in the analysis. The upper panel shows the data for 1970–1990 period and the lower panel for 1980–1996 period. There are two independent variables, percent of secondary school enrollment and logged GNP per capita. GNP per capita has an extremely skewed distribution. In regression analysis, normal distributions for all variables are expected. To correct this problem, I take the natural log of GNP per capita. The mean logged GNP per capita in 1970 was 7.2. The 1990 logged GNP per capita was 7.4.

The intervening variables include industrialization, urbanization, and population growth rate. Finally, the dependent variables include economic

development (logged GNP per capita at a later year), life expectancy, and infant mortality.

Corelation Matrix. Table 3 shows the correlation matrix for all variables used in the two-panel analyses. All the correlation coefficients are significant at .01 level. Furthermore, the strengths of all correlations are substantially strong. Moreover, the direction of relationship is as expected by modernization theory. For example, there is a high correlation between 1970 education and 1990 socioeconomic development. Specifically, .81, .79, and −.76 are the correlations between 1970 education and 1990 logged GNP per capita, 1990 life expectancy, and 1990 infant mortality rate, respectively.

Similarly, there is also a high correlation between 1980 education and 1996 socioeconomic development. Specifically, the correlations between 1980 education and 1996 logged GNP per capita, 1996 life expectancy, and 1996 infant mortality rate are .69, .75, and −.75, respectively. Since the bivariate correlation between the independent variable and the dependent variables does not control for other causal mechanisms, I will be controlling for intervening variables in path analyses. The results of path analyses are reported below.

Path Models. Figure 2 shows the relationship between education and economic development during the 1970–1990 period. The path model shows that the level of education, as measured by secondary school enrollment rate in 1970, has no

direct effect on economic development, as measured by GNP per capita in 1990, after the 1980 urbanization, 1980 industrialization, 1980 population growth rate, and 1970 economic development are held constant. Similarly, urbanization has no effect on economic development after other variables are controlled for, although crossnational studies suggest that urbanization is related to the level of economic development as measured by per capita income or GNP (Chenery and Syrquin 1975).

Nevertheless, education has indirect effects on economic development. The first indirect effect of .09 (.45×.02=.09) from education to economic development is through its effect on industrialization (the path coefficient is .45). High

enrollment rate in secondary school is found to have a moderate and positive effect on level of industrialization. Industrialization is found to have a positive direct effect on economic development (the path coefficient is .20). The second indirect path from education to economic development is through population growth rate. High secondary school enrollment rate lowers a country’s population growth rate (path coefficient is −.90). A country’s population growth rate is found to have a weak and negative effect on its economic development (the path coefficient is −.11). The second indirect effect of education on economic development is .10 (−.99×−.11=.10). The total indirect effect of education on economic development is

.19 (.09+.10=.19).

Figure 3 shows the relationship between education and life expectancy during the 1970–1990 period. The path model shows that the level of education in 1970, as measured by secondary school enrollment rate, has a positive and moderate direct effect on 1990 life expectancy (the path coefficient is .32), after 1980 urbanization, 1980 industrialization, 1980 population growth, and 1970 GNP per capita are controlled for. Countries that invest their resources in education can directly increase their population’s life expectancy. Urbanization and population growth rate are found to have no effect on life expectancy. In addition to its direct effect on life expectancy, education also has an indirect effect on life expectancy. The indirect effect of .32 (.45×.71=.32) from education to life expectancy is through its effect on industrialization (the path coefficient is .45). High level of industrialization is found to have a very strong positive effect on life expectancy (path coefficient is .71). High proportion of population engaged in nonagricultural occupations increases a country’s life expectancy. The total effect of education on life expectancy is .64 (the sum of direct effect, .32, + indirect effect, .32).

The last model for the relationship between education and development between 1970 and 1990, as measured by infant mortality, is shown in Figure 4. According to Figure 4, level of education in 1970 reduces the infant mortality rate in 1990. This finding is consistent with other studies based on individual-level analysis. Moreover, 1980 industrialization also has a direct and negative effect on

infant mortality. Countries with a low proportion of the labor force in nonagricultural activities are more likely to have higher infant mortality rate. The indirect effect of education on infant mortality through industrialization is −.32. (.45 × −.70 = −.32). The total effect on education on infant mortality is −.63 (−.32 + −.31 = −.63).

Figures 5, 6, and 7 examine the relationship between education and economic development, life expectancy, and infant mortality rate during 1980–1996. The intervening variables—urbaniza- tion, industrialization, and population growth rate—are based on 1990 data. Surprisingly, the results from Figure 5 shows that there was no direct or indirect effect of education on economic development during 1980–1996. Only 1980 GNP per capita had a direct impact on the 1996 GNP per capita.

Figure 6 shows that the level of education in 1980 had no direct effect on the 1996 life expectancy. However, it had an indirect effect on life expectancy through its effect on industrialization. The indirect effect of education on life expectancy is .31 (.40 − .77 = .31).

Similar to what was reported in Figure 6, Figure 7 shows that the level of education in 1980 had no direct effect on 1996 infant mortality. However, it had an indirect effect on infant mortality through its effect on industrialization. The 1980 industrialization has a substantially strong negative and direct effect on 1996 infant mortality rate (path coefficient= −.67). The indirect effect of

education on infant mortality is −.27 (.40 × −.67 = −.27) for the 1980–1996 period. The level of economic development in 1960 is also found to have an indirect and negative impact on 1996 infant mortality rate. The indirect effect of economic development on infant mortality is −.37 (.55 × −.67 = −.37), which is stronger than the impact of education during this period.

There were some weaknesses in the study. The variables used in the study are period data. Period data are collected in a given year when their values are very much influenced by macro socioeconomic conditions. The time intervals between the independent and the dependent variables of 20 years (or 16 years for second model) may seem long. Finally, secondary school enrollment was used as the independent variable. Further studies may consider tertiary education as an indicator of education.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Modernization theory maintains that education promotes development. For many developing countries, education is a prominent means of attempting to narrow the knowledge gap between the highly industrialized countries and the developing countries.

This article reported the world’s impressive education and socioeconomic developments over the past few decades. It also examined a diverse set of mechanisms through which education affects socioeconomic development for two periods: 1970– 1990 and 1980–1996. The overall findings suggest that education has a positive effect on life expectancy for both time periods examined. Moreover, education was found to have had negative relationship to infant mortality for the 1970–1990 and 1980–1996 periods. However, the effect of education on economic development is more complicated. Education is found to have had a positive effect on economic development for only the 1970–1990 period, not for 1980–1996 period. Another interesting finding is that the effect of education on development was lower during 1980–1996 than the 1970–1990 period.

The study shows that education, industrialization, and development are inextricably interrelated. To achieve a higher level of socioeconomic

development, policy makers would need to consider the complex relationship between education and development. Several countries have taken steps to improve their educational systems in order to bolster their economies and improve conditions in their nations. In recent history, for example, China and Taiwan have made attempts to modernize and strengthen their economies by encouraging people to further their education, especially in science and technology. It is clear from this study that to improve the welfare of the billions of people in the developing world, governments in developing countries need to continue and expand their investments in education for their population.

The sociology of education and the sociology of development have become very important areas in sociological research. As more advanced data become available, we will be able to do better research in this area by conducting more sophisticated and comprehensive studies. Examining modernization and other theories in the area of education and development will enable sociologists to provide solid knowledge about the mechanisms whereby education affects development, which can be important information for policy makers when they implement policies related to education and development.

REFERENCES

Apter, D. 1965 The Politics of Modernization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Benavot, Aaron 1989 ‘‘Education, Gender, and Economic Development: A Cross-National Study.’’ Sociology of Education 62(1):14–32.

Berg, B. 1973 ‘‘Nutrition and National Development.’’ In Alan Berg, Neven S. Scrimshaw, and David L. Call, eds., Nutrition, National Development and Planning. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Bornschier, Y., and C. Chase-Dunn 1985 Transnational

Corporations and Underdevelopment. New York: Praeger

Publishers.

Bongaarts, John, and Susan C. Watkins 1996 ‘‘Social Interactions and Contemporary Fertility Transitions.’’

Population and Development Review 22:639–682.

Caldwell, John C. 1982 Theory of Fertility Decline. London: Academic Press.

Casterline, John B. ed. 1985 The Collection and Analysis of Community Data. Voorburg, Netherlands: International Statistical Institute.

Chenery, H., and M. Syrquin 1975 Patterns of Development, 1950–1970. New York: Oxford University Press.

Dale, Roger 1982 ‘‘Learning to Be . . .What? Shaping Education in Developing Societies.’’ In Hamza Alavi and Teodor Shanin, eds., Introduction to the Sociology of ‘‘Developing Societies.’’ New York: Monthly Review Press.

Delacroix, J., and C. Ragin 1978 ‘‘Modernizing Institutions, Mobilization, and Third World Development: A Cross-National Study.’’ American Journal of Sociology 84:123–149.

Diebolt, Claude 1997 ‘‘Education and Economic Growth in Germany Before the Second World War.’’ Histori- cal-Social-Research.

Faksh, Mahmud A. 1977 ‘‘The Chimera of Education for Development in Egypt: The Socio-Economic Roles of Unversity Graduates.’’ Middle Eastern Studies 13:229–240.

Gaise, S. K. 1979 ‘‘Some Aspects of Socioeconomic Determinants of Mortality in Tropical Africa’’ (WHO doc: DSI/SE WP/79:13).

Hirschman, Charles, and Yih-Jin Young 1999 ‘‘The Decline of Fertility in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines.’’ In Ronald D. Lee and C. Y. Cyrus Chu, eds., Economic Aspects of Demographic Transition in Asia-Pacific Countries. A supplement to Population and Development Review (Forthcoming).

——— 1998 ‘‘Fertility Transition in Southeast Asia.’’ Paper presented at the Conference on Economic Aspects of Demographic Transition: The Experience of Asian-Pacific Countries, Taipei, Taiwan, June 19– 20, 1998.

Inkeles, Alex, and David Smith 1975 Becoming Modern.

London: Heinemann.

Jamison, Dean, and Lawrence J. Lau 1982 Farmer Education and Farm Efficiency. Published for the World Bank. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Lasswell, Harold D. 1965 ‘‘The Policy Sciences of Development.’’ World Politics 17:286–309.

Lee, Everett 1966 ‘‘A Theory of Migration.’’ Demography 3:47–57.

Lesthaeghe, Ron 1983 ‘‘A Century of Demographic and Cultural Change in Western Europe: An Exploration of Underlying Dimensions.’’ Population and Development Review 9:411–435.

National Research Council 1986 Population Growth and

Economic Development: Policy Questions. Washington,

D.C.: National Academy Press.

Preston, Samuel H. 1976 Mortality Patterns in National Populations: With Special Reference to Recorded Causes of Death. New York: Academic Press.

Ravenstein, E. 1898 ‘‘The Laws of Migration.’’ The Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 52:241–301.

Rodgers, G. B. 1979 ‘‘Income and Inequality as Determinants of Mortality: An International Cross-Section Analysis.’’ Population Studies 33(2):343–351.

Rosero-Bixby, Luis, and John B. Casterline 1993 ‘‘Modelling Diffusion Effects in Fertility Transition.’’ Population Studies 47:147–167.

Rostow, W. W. 1960 The Stages of Economic Growth. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Schultz, T. W. 1979 ‘‘Investment in Population Quality in Low Income Countries.’’ In P. M. Haieser, ed.,

World Population and Development: Challenges and Prospects. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press.

Shavit, Yossi, and Hans-Peter Blossfeld, eds. 1993 Persistent Inequality, Changing Educational Attainment in Thirteen Countries. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.

Summers, Lawrence H. 1994 ‘‘Investing in All the People: Educating Women in Developing Countries’’ (EDI Seminar Paper No. 45), Washington, D.C.: Economic Development Institute of the World Bank.

United Nations 1982 ‘‘Levels and Trends of Mortality Since 1950: A Joint Study by the UN and WHO.’’ New York: United Nations.

World Bank 1994 World Tables 1994. Baltimore: John

Hopkins University Press.

——— 1998 World Development Indicators 1998. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

Young, Yih-Jin 1993 ‘‘A Macro-Comparative Analysis on Socioeconomic Development and Infant Mortality.’’ Paper presented at the Canadian Association for the Study of International Development Ninth Annual Conference, Ottawa, Canada, June 1993.

YIH-JIN YOUNG

Lockheed, Marlaine E., Dean T. Jamison, and Lawrence Lau 1980 ‘‘Farmer Education and Farm Efficiency: A Survey.’’ Economic Development and Cultural Change

29(1):37–76.

Mensch, B., H. Lentzner, and S. Preston 1985 Child Mortality Differentials in Developing Countries. New York: United Nations.

EDUCATION AND MOBILITY

One of the main reasons education is valued so highly in modern societies is the role it plays in relation to social mobility and reproduction. This role has long been debated between those who emphasize its contribution to social mobility and

those who focus on its contribution to social reproduction. In order to understand this debate, it is useful to review the key concepts and theoretical perspectives before considering the empirical evidence and then offering a resolution.

Social stratification refers to institutionalized inequality, that is, to hierarchically structured social positions (strata) and to the inequality in social rewards received by people who belong to different strata. Social stratification is based mainly on class or status, although other forms of stratification exist (for elaboration, see Grusky and Takata 1992; Haller 1992). Class is the term preferred by theorists who view the social order as consisting of distinctive economic groupings struggling to maximize their interests vis-à-vis each other, while status is preferred by theorists who perceive a continuing distribution of socioeconomic variation without clear-cut divisions and conflict.

Social mobility is the movement from one class or status to another. The emphasis here, as with most studies of social mobility, is on intergenerational mobility, which refers to the change in class or status from parents to their adult children. An example of intergenerational mobility is when the daughter or the son of peasants becomes a doctor. In contrast, when the child of peasants ends up being a peasant, it is an example of social reproduction.

The class or status positions that individuals occupy in society are usually attributed to both ascriptive and achievement processes. These are generally viewed as opposite or contradictory processes involving either ascribed characteristics based on biological factors and family of origin or achieved characteristics based on individual traits and behaviors. Stratification systems that emphasize ascriptive characteristics for class or status placement are defined as ‘‘closed’’ and lead to status inheritance or class reproduction. Those stratification systems that emphasize achieved characteristics are defined as ‘‘open’’ and are expected to lead to social mobility.

The opposing positions are formalized in the functionalist and conflict theories of social stratification. With respect to the role of education in producing social mobility, functionalists argue that different social roles require different skills and abilities and that, if society is to function effectively, they must be filled by individuals possessing the appropriate skills and abilities (Davis and Moore

1945). The positions most valued by society are usually the most critical for societal functioning and the most demanding of individual skills and ability. In order to encourage individuals to invest the time and effort for training and to attract the best-qualified individuals, these positions have to be accompanied by higher social and economic rewards. Education is widely viewed as both developing and reflecting individual skills and abilities, and it is therefore used as a means of social selection. Thus, education enhances social mobility by providing for social selection based on achieved rather than ascribed characteristics of individuals.

Conflict theorists start with the premise that society consists of different groups with conflicting interest, and they argue that stratification exists because groups that acquired power, wealth, and prestige want to maintain and enhance their position at the expense of less privileged groups. In respect to education, most conflict theorists agree that schools help to reproduce and legitimize the stratification system by portraying attainment as an achieved individual characteristic, while in fact they select and process individuals on the basis of ascriptive characteristics (Bowles and Gintis 1976; Bourdieu 1977; Willis 1977).

Empirical research on the role of education in the process of social mobility or reproduction has produced conflicting evidence. The argument of mobility through education as suggested by functional theories depends on the validity of two general conditions: (1) Educational attainment must be used as a criterion of eventual class or status position, and (2) the level of educational attainment of individuals must not be influenced by the level of their family’s class or status. Boudon (1976) calls these two conditions necessary for social mobility ‘‘meritocracy’’ and ‘‘equality of educational opportunity’’ respectively. It is important to note that social mobility exists only if both conditions are met and that each of them alone is a necessary but insufficient condition for social mobility.

These conditions necessitate a distinction, as far as the role of education is concerned, that is very rarely made between class and status. The role of education differs considerably in class and status mobility. Education plays a very weak role in class mobility or reproduction (Katsillis and Armer

1992). More specifically, the meritocracy condition is not satisfied, since education is almost never used as a criterion for class. Following Marx, most class theorists see two major classes, capitalists and workers, although the perception of the exact number of classes and their composition varies (see Poulantzas 1974; Wright 1978, 1985; for a discussion of the different views, see Grusky and Takata 1992). Education would play an important role in class reproduction only if it were a major criterion for becoming a capitalist or a worker and the vehicle through which the class of the parents is transferred to their children. But it is neither. In fact, if education were a principle determinant of class, one would expect most Ph.D.’s to be capitalists and a significant number of children from bourgeois families to become workers because of educational difficulties (Katsillis and Armer 1992).

A detailed discussion of the process through which class is reproduced is beyond the scope of this article. It suffices to say here that other institutions, such as the legal system and, more specifically, the inheritance and property transfer laws, are much more reliable and effective for the transfer of class from parents to their children. Whether these children have a high school or higher diploma may be important for other reasons, but it is clearly not essential for the reproduction of their class (Katsillis and Armer 1992).

In addition, educational attainment does not seem to be influenced by family class. Indeed, there is no reliable and consistent empirical evidence that supports such a relationship. When class is measured as determined by the relation of production and not as a status position, it has no effect on educational attainment, especially if the status position is held constant (see Katsillis and Armer 1992; Katsillis and Rubinson 1990; Katsillis and Spinthourakis 1997). At first glance, this would indicate that the equality of educational opportunity hypothesis is satisfied in relation to class. However, taking into account the absence of meritocracy in class determination, the lack of influence of class is more an indication of the weak role education plays in class reproduction or mobility than of its equalizing potential.

In contrast to class, education plays an important role in status allocation. Many studies have empirically tested the meritocracy hypothesis, and

almost all have found a significant relationship between educational and later socioeconomic attainments (Blau and Duncan 1967; Duncan et al. 1972; Jencks et al. 1972; Sewell et al. 1969). Indeed, most studies in the United States have found educational attainment to be among the most important determinants of occupational and status attainment, although the findings regarding its relationship to income are not as conclusive (Jencks et al. 1972). In short, the meritocracy condition is well supported by empirical evidence.

However, other studies of social mobility have found that employing meritocracy in the allocation of occupational and social status does result in substantial increases in social mobility (Boudon 1974; Collins 1979). Boudon, using data from Western industrialized countries, and Collins, analyzing data from the United States, found that the tremendous expansion of education in the nineteenth and twentieth century left the opportunities for social mobility essentially unchanged. It did expand the educational attainment of many social groups, but, as the educational attainment of individuals from lower socioeconomic strata increased, individuals from higher strata acquired even more education, thus shifting the overall educational attainment of the population upward but keeping intact the stratification of educational attainment (Boudon 1974; Collins 1979). Given that meritocracy in the allocation of social positions exists, these findings suggest the lack of equality of educational opportunity.

In relation to the latter, the functionalist position is that schools do provide equality of opportunity. For empirical support, they point to the numerous empirical studies suggesting that the process of educational attainment is an achievement process. The best-known model of educational and status attainment in the United States, known as the Wisconsin model, describes the process as one whereby individual and background characteristics are translated into differential status attainment only after they have been transformed into individual performance and psychological variables (Sewell et al. 1969; 1970). Although this model has been criticized for excluding social constraints and related structural variables (see Kerckhoff 1976), its explanatory power remains strong, and it has withstood a number of replications (Alexander, Eckland, and Griffin 1978; Jencks et al. 1983). Indeed, most of the research on the

social selection process that followed the Wisconsin model has shown that schools select, process, and reward students based on individual traits and achievements, such as aspirations and ability, and that educational attainment in turn is the major determinant of occupational status attainment.

Conflict theorists and researchers, by contrast, have not been very successful in describing and explaining a social selection process that leads to social reproduction. The explanations and the evidence as to why individuals from higher social strata acquire consistently better education have not been able to dispute or account for the fact that the educational selection process is ostensibly an ‘‘achievement’’ process. In general, the argument from a conflict perspective is that structural limitations imposed on the schooling of some groups restrict their educational success, thus helping to reproduce the educational and social hierarchies.

Some structural limitations on both the quality and quantity of educational opportunity of children from low socioeconomic strata do indeed exist. Differential quality and quantity of schooling may have been especially influential in the past, but it still exists today. Some of the best schools at all educational levels in the United States are private, with high tuition, and obviously not all social groups have equal access to or success in these institutions. Also, fewer institutions, especially at the postprimary levels, are available in rural or low-income areas. Nonetheless, the impact of variation in quality and quantity of schooling has been reduced over the years, and evidence does not indicate it as a major determinant of educational attainment. For example, the wellpublicized report Equality of Educational Opportunity (Coleman et al. 1966) found that differences between public schools had no significant effect on student performance. In general, even though some relevant quality differences between schools may still exist today, this structural variable is a relatively weak factor in explaining differential educational attainment.

Other structural variables, such as curriculum tracking (Alexander, Cook, and McDill 1978) and differential treatment by teachers and counselors (Karabel 1972; Rist 1970), also have been found to exert significant influence on educational attainment. In addition, researchers have found that

cultural differences linked to differential social origin are also responsible for the unequal educational attainment of students from different social groups (Bourdieu 1977; Bourdieu and Passeron 1977; DiMaggio 1982). Overall, however, structural limitations and cultural deficiencies account for only a small amount of attainment differences as compared to the individual achievement variables.

Summarizing the findings on equality of educational opportunity and meritocracy presents a paradoxical picture of social stratification and leaves the issue of social mobility through education largely unresolved: Status attainment research has shown that educational and status attainment is a meritocratic process based on individual achievement variables, but it has not explained the relatively low social mobility rates. Critical research, on the other hand, has shown reproduction of social status, but it has not been able to unseat the equality of opportunity thesis resting on the association of individual achievement with educational status attainment.

This apparent paradox may be due in part to the fact that research on educational and social stratification in the last few decades has been dominated by the ascription–achievement controversy without necessarily examining the relationship between this controversy and the broader mobility–reproduction debate. The underlying assumption of this focus seems to have been that achievement leads to mobility and ascription leads to reproduction. But however important achievement and ascription may be, they do not address the same issues as mobility and reproduction. A way out of this impasse may be to challenge the assumed correspondence between what we traditionally consider individual achievements on the one hand and social mobility on the other. There is no reason to assume that an empirical finding of schooling as an achievement process is necessarily incompatible with a theoretical argument of schooling as a process of reproduction. As long as individual qualities and achievements are determined by the social origin of the student, educational systems can promote not only social reproduction and individual achievement but also social reproduction through achievement (Katsillis and Rubinson 1990).

One of the most consistent findings of the research on educational and status attainment is