introduces novel approach to the field (of mobility tables), studying women! finds this alters implications of mobility tables, actually declined since 1960s

The social origin measure used is typically derived from a father's class position. However, Beller makes an important change to the inputs in the classic mobility structure. She updates the mobility table approach to test which operationalization
of social origins is the best fit for predicting social destinations.

She runs a series of models that test:

1. models including father's standing only
2. model's including mother's standing only

3. mothers which include both maternal and paternal standing in an additive model

4. models which include some interaction of paternal and maternal characteristics.

Her conclusions from this analysis is that for situations for which both parents are in the labor market, including maternal and paternal characteristics in measuring social origins
provides the best model fit. However, when housewives are included in such a  model, this produces considerable heterogeneity.

missing mothers distorts social stratication produced biasing estimates of mobility can change findings

Started with ranking from sizable US sample. Used Census data to calculate the perccent of male worrkers with four years of high school or higher (1950) and those with $3,500+ (1949).

Scale is 0-96  resembles other scales

Can be intepretted as

1. estimates of (unknow) prestige scale, or

2. values on a scale of occupational socioeconomic states.

samples and ask people to rank
creates occupational scores using data which shows temporal stability in occupational rankings,

Occupations of very different character have similar scores. However, Refines but doesn not radically differ in gradation.

Considers all a gradation instead of distinct classes.  However occupations at the same level overlap in education, income, politics, measured intellegences, etc.

The classic scale for measuring occupation is presented by Duncan who uses
a socioeconomic index. To create his scale Duncan created scale values of occupation
and matched these to percentage of excellent or good responses. The
problem with this scale, as Hodge argues, is that there is some uncertainty as to
what Duncan's index is designed to measure: a combination of social economic
status, prestige, or something entirely dierent and an additional concern that
the entire measure is contextual and thus ill-equiped to handle counterfactual
scenarios.

Conceptual meaning of Duncan's scale is not clear. 3 alternative interpretations available and none are entirely satisfactory.

1. interpretation: "expected percatage of excellent and good ratings an occupations would recieve in a prestige inquiry of the North-Hatt type." (census-derived indicators).

1-problems: a. prediction equation for prestige indicator is less than satisfactory (accounts for a bit more than 4/5 of varation in prestiage rations.

2. Interpretation-"socioeconomic index of occupational status"(education as status, income as economic measures). (Duncan's preferred explanation)

2 problems. a. combining education and economics into composite.  Are they proportional to weights in the index?  For some positions education and income are opposite signs for things like fertility.  Combining them presumes unidimensionality.

b. socioecomic status SES has no independent analyytical status in strat theory.  No theorectial justification for choosing ed and income as stand ins for class measures

3. linear transformation of the best guess we could make of the age-standardized percentage of an occupation's male incumbents with either at least a high school diploma or 1949 incomes of $3,500+

this makes us aware of how education and income are glued together in Duncan's scale

This makes clear uncertainity re results obtained by Duncan's scale

Key issues: SEI reduces occupation to contextual variable No logically concievable way in which one could run an experiment to test for any observed effects.

Causes can never be isolated.  Many correlates to occupation.

Duncan looks at education and income of incumbents instead of assigning similar education to career (etc)

Advantages of Prestige vs SEI

1. SEI is derived from characteristics of occupations incumbents. Prestige does not - opperationaly independent of characteristics of an occupations incumbents

2. prestige (status) is a well-defined concept in strat theory.  (i.e. Weber's defintion of power) ie expectations that member of one occupation will recieve deference from others.  Prestige is not identical to power, but it represents command over the respect of others.  (may not actually measure, but it's an intelligent question to ask.)

Advantage of SEI over prestige:

1. SEI performs better, better reliablity.  So a good reason to prefer SEI. 

The problem with this scale, as Hodge argues, is that there is some uncertainty as to what Duncan's index is designed to measure: a combination of social economic status, prestige, or something entirely dierent and an additional concern that the entire measure is contextual and thus ill-equiped to handle counterfactual scenarios.

The Blau Duncan path diagram shows a correlation
between father's education and father's occupation and direct effects: of

father's education on a respondent's education,

father's occupation on respondent's first job,

father's occupation on respondent's occupation,

respondent's education on respondent's occupation, and

respondent's first job on respondent's occupation.

The Blau Duncan's structure is such to suggest that the total direct effects of father's status can be measured by summing the direct effect of father's characteristics and the effect of father's characteristics as they correlate with other pathways indirect effects.

The authors conclude that father's characteristics have something of a .535 correlation with child characteristics, but that education serves as an important mediating variable aectiong intergenerational occupational mobility. The finding that education serves as an important mediator
emphasizes why last week's readings on how families determine educational attainment is important.

They use the (what they deem) moderate correlation between father and child characteristics to challenge the notion of a vicious cycle of poverty by arguing that even with some signicant intergenerational correlations, signicant mobility occurs.

In class notes: father’s occupation is measured by SEI scale.  Assume Father’s occupation and education are correlated and not stating which is which (no causal implications). All are standardized, so are in units of standard deviation.  The arrow from nowhere is everything else we don’t know the residual, (luck, other stuff, measurement error- but not correlated with father’s occupation/education). Arrows in path analysis that don’t go directly to dependent variable are indirect effects.

Probably quantifying and correlating/relating variables all effects models.

How much of respondents outcome depends on family background isn’t that much, not-zero, but not a lot.  There is a lot of uncertainity in position in society isn’t as effected by social background, but not a vicious circle, more variation than not in people’s outcomes.

Limitations of this model/study. All based on men. (this is all white men, but the book found more mobility in blacks, they call it a perverse openness among blacks, upper class blacks less able to pass on advantage to kids). What about genes, grandparents status, cognitive ability – inherited, (very controversial stuff) there is a lot of stuff that happens when motivation, intelligence. Fundamental measurement problems.  Twin studies and gene mapping, looking to models with gene markers and DNA samples.

direct effect of origin on test scores, secondary effect on evaluation of meaning of education

suggest a revision to rational choice which acknowledges:

1. cost befinets,

2. perceived abilities and

3. available resources

for working class people have guarantee that they maintain working class position by jobs and education to maximize utility also comes with risk which may lower their social standing

Breen and Goldthrope – risk aversion, want to stay at or above current class. for upperclass, don’t want to risk failing below their SES status and to do this must attend school.  For lower-class, there is a guarantee to get job at their level, don’t want to end up in the lowest class, and the safer strategy is to just get a job, less uncertainity, less of a risk.

Idea is if you go to college and fail the key exam you are in a worse place than if you never go. The perception of risk is more important than the reality

Breen and Goldthrope develop an economic model considering risk aversion – not wanting to end up in a position lower than one’s parents, resource cost, and belief about one’s ability to succeed.  They argue that for working class families, the decision to leave school makes rational sense given their assumptions and available resources.

critique the binomial logit model of educational transitions popularized by Mare (1980, 1981)
and recommend a multinomial model of educational careers. The authors use longitudinal data
from Swedish statistical registries to empirically test the strengths and weaknesses of their
proposed “MT Model” in comparison to the binomial model. Results indicate that the specific
pathways taken through the education system influence the probability of making subsequent
education transitions. Furthermore, these findings are robust to unmeasured heterogeneity. The
authors recommend use of the multinomial transition model in future stratification studies.

technical recommendation is straightforward: analysts should replace the use of a binary logit model with a multinomial logit model. This means that instead of modeling two outcomes (e.g., school continuation or drop out), analysts should model three or more outcomes (e.g., academic track, vocational track, or drop out). This relatively simple technical change has important implications for the conceptualization of educational careers and the
precision with which the relationship between social background and educational attainment is
estimated.

Breen and Jonsson argue that individuals do not necessarily move through the educational system in a unilinear sequential mode as assumed by the logit model. Many European systems, for example, have qualitatively different parallel branches of education (e.g., academic and vocational) that may or may not converge at a later stage. Furthermore, social background effects may be stronger/weaker in shaping transition rates to specific branches. For example, “classorigin differences between those who choose the vocational path and those leave school will generally be rather less than class-origin differences between those who follow the academic
path and those who leave school” (pg. 759). In the binomial model, the academic and vocation
paths are often collapsed which means that the social-origin coefficient is a weighted average of
the true* coefficients.

Alternatively, one track could be thrown out of the binomial analysis, but this ignores potentially valuable information.

Breen and Jonsson are also interested in understanding how educational careers shape potential career outcomes in two ways that the Mare Model is unable to estimate.

1. They want to examine path dependency or the extent to which prior educational choices influence subsequent educational transitions.

2. investigate the “possibility of variations in the
effects of class-origins in determining the probability of choosing among a set of educational options” (pg. 755).

The Swedish registry provides a high-quality dataset with measures of parents’ occupation, social class, gender, educational transitions, and grade point average for over 350,000 individuals born between 1954 and 1967. Sweden’s educational system includes three transitions between approximately age 16 and the start of tertiary education. At each transition point, students are able to select an academic path, vocational path, or leave school and the system is relatively “open” meaning there is technically the possibility of switching paths at each transition.

Finally, Sweden has implemented public policies with the goal of reducing educational inequality by
equalizing resources rather than through educational expansion, which makes it an interesting case study.

The authors analyze the Swedish data using the Mare Model and the MT Model and compare the
results. In these data, the Mare Model tends to deflate class-origin effects at the lower transition
points and inflate them at the transition to higher education. Note that this is not a feature of the
models and these results will vary depending on the data analyzed.

The authors also use average log odds ratios to determine the extent of path dependency. In the
Swedish case, they find that there is a “marked persistence effect” at the second transition point
such that the rate of switching paths is negligible. At the third transition, those who followed an academic-academic path or a vocational-academic path have the highest odds of continuing their schooling. Given this evidence of path dependency, Breen and Jonsson investigate its relationship to class-origin using the MT model. They find that less common educational pathways are characterized by higher class-origin inequalities in comparison to more common educational pathways.

Particularly for men, class-origin effects vary according to path.

Like Cameron ad Heckman (1998), Breen and Jonsson are also concerned about the potential
problem of unmeasured heterogeneity.

Unfortunately, the MT Model is susceptible the same
critique, although to a lesser extent.

1 Closely related is the problem of selection bias, which is actually more problematic in the MT Model than the Mare Model because of non-independence
of transitions. “An apparent path dependence may be spurious because it is induced by the common effect of the unmeasured variable on earlier choices (the paths) and current choices.”

To address these selection bias concerns, Breen and Jonsson use Vermun’s latent class approach and “focus on the robustness of the effects of path dependence at the transition to tertiary education” (pg. 768). I am not familiar with this procedure, but the authors state that the findings are robust and did not change any prior conclusions.

Breen and Jonsson conclude, “the MT model improves our understanding of underlying processes of educational inequality and provides better guidance for which political measures are appropriate to reduce such inequality” (pg. 771). I agree that the MT model allows for more complex and nuanced studies of educational inequality. In this regard, it should be a ‘tool’ in every analyst’s ‘toolbox.’ However, I am not convinced that is appropriate for all or even many studies of intergenerational process related to educational attainment. Breen and Jonsson note that their criticisms of the Mare Model do not apply to educational systems that permit only binary choices or when these choices are unimportant (pg. 755).

However, they also state “such differentiation is present in (virtually) all educational systems, including that of the United States” (pg. 759). While the MT model seems very appropriate in the Swedish context (and several others), it is less clear how it would apply to the U.S. context. According to research on tracking and school organization more broadly, the U.S. educational system is more
differentiated within schools than across schools.

Even if alternative stratifying measures were
available (e.g., prestige is recommended by the authors), it still seems implausible at the k-12
level in the U.S. It is possible that this model could be used to study horizontal stratification in
postsecondary education. Furthermore, cross-national studies that prioritize standardization of
measures and models will be faced with difficult decisions regarding how to classify each
nation’s educational system into several categories.

Additionally, the authors gloss over the limitations associated with using a multinomial outcome.
In my personal experience, I have found that researchers are significantly less familiar with a
multinomial outcome, which makes interpretation more difficult. Therefore, papers using
multinomial logit models must be written in a more careful and explanatory manner.

Additionally, some specialty statistical analyses and certain combinations of procedures with a multinomial outcome are not possible in standard statistical software packages. Finally, the MT
model simply asks a lot of the data so a relatively large sample size is necessary to avoid small
cell size issues or problems of ‘perfect prediction.’
Therefore, I believe that the MT Model can serve as an important advancement to the Mare Model under certain conditions. However, I do not believe that it will revolutionize the field in the way that the Mare Model did in the early 1980s. It is important for analysts to understand its potential given certain research questions and datasets, but like any model, it has limitations that
were not very clearly represented in this paper.

concludes Sweden and Poland most fluid countries

Britain yardstick

Germany less mobile

found convergent trend in absolutely mobility across countries

no convergence in social mobility

social fluidity relationship between class origin and current placement

uses chi sq, likelihood

study of trends in social mobility across several countries in Europe.

Using loglinear models to show changes in social mobility across countries.

Demonstration of broad trends in similar social mobility across countries.

Findings entirely dependent on whether the definition of class is meaningful and

whether the implications of occupying a particular class status are similar across countries studied.,

index of dissimilarity and bic to measure model t

cross-national analysis documents a convergence in the class distribution across countries but does not
highlight a similar trend in social fluidity.

In his conclusion about trends in social mobility across countries, Breen introduces the OED triangle.

This model shows two pathways from which origin social standing leads to a destination standing.

The first is a direct path from origin to destination, consistent with an ascriptive view of social standing, social standing inherited.

The second is a direct path between origin social standing and education and then a second path from education to destination. If education completely mediated the relationship between origin and destination positions, we might view the society
as meritocratic (IF and ONLY IF we ignore selection processes into particular educational attainment)

Campbell 1983

has some criticisms, says attempts should be made to not only replicate Wisconsin model but extend it

Ask whethers the questions intended to measure aspirations, achievement, and/or ability in fact adequately measures those constructs.

This a challenge to Hauser's model: yes, researchers
may get the same findings about the role of aspirations and scholastic achievement in determining occupational status if questions are asked in the exact same way, but are these questions actually capturing the intended constructs?

suggests revision to social capital to acknowledge how individuals of actors are shaped by context, merges capital and rational perspectives social capital control over certain events and resources, situational, can be positive and negative

social capital exists in relations among persons
density of social capital matters for determining interactions social capital can produce human capital, if relations in families are close they can compensate for lack of skills through interactions suggests younger siblings do worse off because of less social capita

Coleman 1988-says introducing social capital, linked to possess of a network to share how to resource other capital in their network.  Brings together how people act in a social structure to best maximize their utility. Obilgation, expectation, and favors of the network. (carpooling, baby-sittying to make things easier).

Information sharing – (ex. Talking to friends about fashion/parents finding out about homework assignments from others), norms and sanction – norm of doing homework right away, that helps community as a whole.

closure- the relationships you have they know each other also. Parent A knows Parent B and they both know the teacher and because it’s a closed network – in the school it helps you.  Existing social organizations you can use for other proposes.

Social capital as a compliment to human capital, need human capital to get benefit from social capital.  One type of social capital is in the family – time and effort in the family. Other is broader capital –network another type of social capital

Coleman sees social capital as a public good, sees high levels of social capital in the Catholic school. – makes it integrated.

Problems- social capital is defined by its function so it’s hard to define and measure.  Difficult to find cause and effects.   Can you operationalize things differently.  Methodological programs

Coleman would argue that Lareau gets cultural capital and social capital mixed up.

Coleman 1988 social capital, bourdieu!
made up of social obligations that is linked to the possession of a network.

rational actors and social structures, social capital relates these two things

three aspects
1. obligations, expectations and trustworthiness of a network

2. networks from friends or connections bartered to goals

3. norms and sanctions, if people you know, know each other this leads to closure

different from bourdieu coleman talks about social capital as a public good

Problems with social capital
social capital is denfied by its functions

Abstract

In this paper, the concept of social capital is introduced and illus- trated, its forms are described, the social structural conditions under which it arises are examined, and it is used in an analysis off dropouts from high school. Use of the concept of social capital is part of a general theoretical strategy discussed in the paper: taking rational action as a starting point but rejecting the extreme individ- ualistic premises that often accompany it. The conception of social capital as a resource for action is one way of introducing social structure into the rational action paradigm. Three forms of social capital are examined: obligations and expectations, information channels, and social norms. The role of closure in the social structure in facilitating the first and third of these forms of social capital is described. An analysis of the effect of the lack of social capital available to high school sophomores on dropping out of school be- fore graduation is carried out. The effect of social capital within the family and in the community outside the family is examined

Conclusion

In this paper, I have attempted to introduce into social theory a concept, "social capital," paralleling the concepts of financial capital, physical capital, and human capital-but embodied in relations among persons. This is part of a theoretical strategy that involves use of the paradigm of rational action but without the assumption of atomistic elements stripped of social relationships. I have shown the use of this concept through demonstrating the effect of social capital in the family and in the commu- nity in aiding the formation of human capital. The single measure of human capital formation used for this was one that appears especially responsive to the supply of social capital, remaining in high school until graduation versus dropping out. Both social capital in the family and social capital outside it, in the adult community surrounding the school,

Social Capital showed evidence of considerable value in reducing the probability of dropping out of high school. In explicating the concept of social capital, three forms were identified: obligations and expectations, which depend on trustworthiness of the social environment, information-flow capability of the social structure, and norms accompanied by sanctions. A property shared by most forms of social capital that differentiates it from other forms of capital is its public good aspect: the actor or actors who generate social capital ordinarily capture only a small part of its benefits, a fact that leads to underinvestment in social capital.

Conley discussion of sibling similarity and dierences over the life course

high sibling resemblance resembles a more castelike society

global effect of family is measured in family background

parents are often thought to have investment neutral investments or child

equality preferences
correlations among siblings are highest by education then occupation income and wealth

Conley more explicitly approaches questions of how
dierential parental investments may aect sibling outcomes.

looks at sibling correlations in life outcomes
which siblings are alike, which diverge
assumes high sibling resemblance, reflects caste like society, low sibship resemblance

more meritocracy
however could be dynamics with siblings and sib order in the family

suggests parents may have equal investment strategy or equal child outcomes

suggest sibling correlation most similar for education then occupation then income

parent preference models not supported, wealth correlation is lower than income

black siblings lower educational correlation

Conley (2008), family background affects all siblings in the same way.  Instead of looking at each family background separately, look at all of background as a common factor that affects both self and siblings. Can decompose attainment into things all have in common and things unique to individual sibs. If interested in a particular question in teasing out the mother/father education, etc matters separately.

But Conley looks at how may invest in kids differentially, maybe the better child or like the welfare state, bring them up. If don’t assume that people treat kids differently, the idea of family background effect is less strong.  But, by and large find that family background does have an effect.  That parents overall do treat kids fairly equally. 

Duncan's Socioeconmic Index for all Occupation

-assigns status scores to all occupations held by fathers and socns at various points in their careers

two main approachs topological model approach featherman and hauser,
look at different regions of table and say they have the same procesess going on,
you map out the mobility space map
esti
quasi perfect mobility if you are not immobile you have an equal chance of being in any other classs
use a single parameter that expresses distance between origin and destination, this is called association models, this is more parsimonious. they have one association parameter that is a funciton of assocition models

simplest association model is row and column ffeects are integers and expressed as a single parameter but this doesn't fit because it doesn't incorporate
immobility very well

quasi-mobility association perfectly models diaganol cells with uniform association

but not independence, farther you go from origin to destination, lower associtons

Mobility table

suggest blanking out really dense or sparse cells in mobility table and ditting quasi-independence models
larger number of entries blocked, the worse the model fit

suggests quasi-independence model attaches too much importance on

suggests understand mobility tables as defined as expected value of cell given, row effect, column effect and interaction term

doesn't assume ordinality but acknowledges it is helpful for making interpretations

suggest occupational immobility highest for farm then next highest for high manual labor

doesn't describe distribution of labor just mobility
great immobility at top and bottom of occupational hierarchy

The classic mobility table analysis presented this week by Featherman and
Hauser nds that in the United States at the time they were writing (the 1960s)
there was relatively little mobility at the top and the bottom of the occupational
distribution. They nd are transitional classes which have about equal odds of
moving up or down, and blue collar positions in the middle of the hierarchy
are not very predictive of ultimate social class.

in US and Australia allocation of educational and economic status is largely socioeconomic in nature

I.e. inter and intragenerational movement of men among their own and parents' education and occupation more closely follow dimension of "socioeconomic: distance than "prestige" distances.

estimates based SEI scale yields a higher correlation than prestige scale

Model SEI off Blau-Duncan (1967) and say this is better than prestigde model.  The prestige and SES scales are substantively different.   and SEI is preferable.

Tries to measure what is meant as prestige

critiques usefulness of the prestige concept

May measure previaling ideas at a lower level of abstraction (i.e. higher pay is better than lower pay

Treiman develops a purely prestige scale and discusses near universal agreement of respondents to such probes. However a point that Treiman is never clear on and for which Goldthorpe rightly takes him to task for is that it is: what people
are thinking when they answer these questions on occupational prestige. Does prestige has some meaning more than what perceived popular view of good jobs?

either causal model of sibship size or selection/spurious factors explain association
between sibship size and intellect
kids with more siblings do worse

Parity can also be seen to have important implications for diering child outcomes.

Guo explores the eect of sibship size on performance on cognitive  sts. Using data from the NLSY studies, theyfind that while conventional ols regressions suggest that sibship size is negatively related to measured cognitive abilities, these effects are largely attenuated in a fixed effects model which can try to control for time invariant traits. This suggests that the correlation between sibship size and cognitive ability may be spurious.

Harding et al. 2005

Harding et al (2005) used the Occupational Changes in a Generation survey and the General Social Survey to measure how current family income related to parental characteristics. They found overall, the upper quartile and lower quartile of both men and women tended to stay in the same quartile as they were at birth and very few shifted more than one quartile. 

develop approach which focuses on family's total income

this allows them to take into account how marriage market influences life chances

natural abilities often determine what choices people make for themselves

family inuences genes and how much people work and their taste for goods, and the goods they receive

from 1960s payo to education increased in both the labor and marriage markets

Harding et al (2005) used the Occupational Changes in a Generation survey and the General Social Survey to measure how current family income related to parental characteristics. They found overall, the upper quartile and lower quartile of both men and women tended to stay in the same quartile as they were at birth and very few shifted more than one quartile. 

focus analysis on adults 30 to 50 and family income in previous year

look at OCG sample born more recently and GSS, sample born earlier (between 1913 and 1945) finds in OCG, associations between family status and respondents went down, for GSS associations went up for men

for women it's more complicated

decline in role of parental occupation due in part to decline in farmers

reaches conclusion that income relationship between parent and child income has remained fairly steady over time but because inequality grew, the effects of this correlation are magnified.

effect of parent's education grew between 1970s and 1990s

-How the relationship between American family income during adulthood and family background during childhood changed from 1961 to 1999?

-This paper focuses on individual’s total family income (those who are not working will be considered)

-The authors measure 7 different family background characteristics (independent variables).  They use multiple correlation and bivariate correlation method, and they found that there were significant changes in equality of opportunity in the U.S. between 1961 and 1999.

For men, the equality of opportunity increased during the 1960s but changed little thereafter.

Among women there was less equality opportunity in the early 1970s than among men, but equality of opportunity among women increased during the 1970s. By the late 1990s, the importance of family background for women’s economic prospects was similar to its importance for a man’s economic prospects.

-The importance of race, ethnicity and religion declined between 1961 and 1999.

A serious problem with Blau and Duncan's challenge
to the viscous cycle of poverty literature is that they measure the association between father and son outcome's using correlations. The substantive importance of correlation coecients can only be understood in relation to the variation in the population or sample of interest. By variation, I am referring to the range of prestige in jobs, the number of jobs at each prestige, and the distribution
of pay across jobs. This is a point made quite effectively by Harding and colleagues who conclude among other things that the correlation between father and son outcomes have remained relatively stable from the 1970s through the present, but as income inequality has increased, these correlations have become substantively more meaningful

Hauser and Mossel's main conclusions are that across
family variation in outcomes is greater than within family variation and that while there is signicant correlation between brothers (around .6), there are also important differences.

can decompose attainment into a factor that extends to a factor that all sibs having common and some that are unique to individuals

looks at explanatory effect of Wisconsin model of intergenerational inheritance when measurement error is taken into account, revised model allowing for changes and response inconsistency supports original model and suggests these adjustments improve it's explanatory power by systematic nature to measurement error offsets downward bias of expectation

used the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study (WLS) to account for some of the measurement error in the earlier studies. They found there was large response error in the earlier studies and when it was corrected socioeconomic background had more influence on later educational and occupational attainment.

Hout 1988

Finish this

College cancels out earlier effects

Education has been cited as increasingly important for economic success and life style variations. Hout shows this in his 1988 paper which suggests that among those individuals who obtain a college degree have life chances completely independent of class of origin.

Education is increasingly important for earnings,
occupation, health and family formation.

or both men and women more upward mobility

women more likely be in white collar occupation
mothers influence daugthers but not sons

1970s and 1980s similar levels of gross mobility but a balance between more universalism, those who get a college degree are more more likely to be open

but less structural mobility (differences between row and columns)

1970s move away from farmwork so sons moved but just because of structure of occupations, people were forced to be mobile

opposed to this in 1970s white collar jobs grew
in the 1980s, he thinks shift from farmwork is pretty over for men upward and downward mobility is narrowing because of fluidity provided by college degrees, in the 1980s credentialing becomes more important

drop in origin destination association for workers without hs degree

lack of changes masked two countervailing trends
women have more fluidity than men
driving that increasing fluidity is increasing share of workforce with college degrees

college degree is a great equalizer of occupations but once you get a college degree an independence model holds

you do better when there is a model for fathers and mothers
1991 fater looking at both sides father status homogamy by intergenerational
ways

The association between men's and women's socioeconomic origins and destinations decreased by one-third between 1972 and 1985. This trend is related to the rising proportion of workers who have college degrees. Origin status affects destination status among workers who do not have bachelor's degrees, but college graduation cancels the effect of background status. Therefore, the more college graduates in the work force, the weaker the association between origin status and destination status for the population as a whole. Overall mobility remains unchanged because a decline in structural mobility offsets the increased openness of the class structure. Up- ward mobility still exceeds downward mobility in the 1980s but by a smaller margin than it did in the 1960s and 1970s. We c

CASMIN -- Erikson and Goldthorpe's cross national study used as a template
for developing models of class using a neo-Weberian schema. Widely used in loglinear
studies.

Criticized by Hauser and Hout (1992) for ignoring heterogeneity
and non-linearity in the model.

main conclusions of CASMIN project, variation across countries in social mobility and policy affects mobility but so different policies that it is hard to compare

For example a criticism
of the CASMIN ndings brought up by Hauser and Haut is that there is the heterogeneity
in class distances across countries which should not be ignored when
running analyses. Even if dierences in particular countries are acknowledged
as Mueller does in his work, it is very dicult to say that countries are comparable
on all characteristics except that being studied. For example, the United
States diers from Germany in the orientation of its education system, but it is
dicult to say that this dierence accounts for dierences in the eects of the
education system on employment trajectoriesit is always possible that historical
processes which dierentiate the countries are driving patterns observed not
the variables studied. This is a challenge in conducting cross national research
that, even if dierences are acknowledged, is diuclt to overcome. One potential
solution is when comparing countries, to use each case as its own control.
concludes CASMIN measures have problems in linearity and heterogeneity
connecting occupations to other outcomes

For mobility tables to have
value, we have to make some assumptions about the signicance of being in
a particular class and having a constant meaning over time or in the case of
a cross-national analysis, across countries. Additionally useful in an analysis
about the substantive importance of changing classes is some parametric assumption
about what a change in a class means for other outcomes (i.e. does a
1 unit increase in class yield a 1000 dollar increase in income). This is a topic
that Hauser and Hout explore in their 1992 work. They nd that Goldthorpe's
original schema of class classication had signicant deviations from linearity
(or any parameterization really) such that this interpretation of the eects of a
class change were not realistic.

models crossnational comparison of origin selection to qualification and qualification selection to destination class

expect less inequality for manual labor in egalitarian case but possibly same relative service advantage

expect unqualified more likely to enter unskilled labor

service advantage comes from having better access to qualifications and avoiding low qualifications

confirms hierachy 2 is in part explained by qualifications

signicant cross national variation

distinguishes between achievement and aptitutde and argues that the former is a more important predictor of educational attainment and later labor market success.

finds achievement better predicts education than aptitude, largely conrms wisconsin model

structural arrangements mediate role between individual origins and attainment

ganzeboom 1991
three generations of stratification models
1. tables cross-classifying occupation of fathers and soons

2. path model beginning with Blau and Duncan

3. now return to tables but with more sophisticated models and better data

this review is grounded in second generation of research
can conceptualize intergenerational mobility in terms of moves across a series of institutions

institutions constrain individual actions and options

blau and duncan's model is limited in three ways
1. failure to consider structural locations in social organizations and moves

2. model is oversimplication of move from origin to adult destination

3. variation in orderliness of individual career pathways which path model cannot capture

section 1 connection between social origin and educational attainment
job of school is to grade students and create the next generation of aristocracy but never really democratic

1. personal traits associated with school achievement and social origin

2. different social origins have different access to educational resources

3. formal and informal structure of schools may favor those of higher social origins

focuses on resources
schools can be opportunities encouraged with family resources

section school and labor force entry
difficult to discern which is first completed educational attainment or first job

differences across cultures, returns to school common in Britain not so much in Germany

career advancement
education may only affect first job but there are certain glass ceilings

varies across countries, most orderly in german case
signicant differences across countries in mobility

Auggest for individuals process of occupational stratification changes as people age

this may occur as inequality is the process of interactions over time

1. they expect family and gender (i.e. woman) matters most for people in their early careers

2. expect education eects also strongest at career entry but

3. cognition should remain of constant importance

they find support for all three of these hypotheses

Finds decreasing sibling similarity with age

finds outcome and sibling correlation is sensitive to measure of ses used

Warren, Hauser, and Sheridan (2002) used paired sibling data to account for measured and unmeasured aspects of family background, again using WLS. They took a life course perspective on career status and earnings. They found that family background’s entire influence is through education and cognitive ability, both education and cognitive ability affect first job, and the first job and cognitive ability directly influence later careers. While men worked in higher paying careers, the process of occupational stratification is similar for men and women.

Warren (2002) suggests that education most
strongly aects an individual's rst job but it does not have an enduring effect on contemporary employment (Warren contrasts this with cognition which does
have an enduring effect).

suggests that education most strongly affects an individual's first job but it does not have an enduring effect
on contemporary employment (Warren contrasts this with cognition which does have an enduring effect).

Prestige scales are very consistent in rankings regardless of wording of question, type of ranking, types of occupation, education of rankers, and across countries etc. No systematic varations. (Intercounty correctaion is .81)

Constant ranking of occupations across place and over time, skill, authority and economic control

Alternative to the socioeconomic index are scales that measure prestige.
Treiman develops a purely prestige scale and discusses near universal agreement of respondents to such probes. However a point that Treiman is never clear on and for which Goldthorpe rightly takes him to task for is that it is: what people
are thinking when they answer these questions on occupational prestige. Does prestige has some meaning more than what perceived popular view of good jobs?

Response to Hout who says college degree is the great equalizer.

challenged and revised by Torche who finds in the
contemporary US, college graduates do have about independent life chances, but graduate school is becoming a new norm which is unequally distributed
and looking just at college graduation, ignores horizontal stratication within college graduates (i.e.
prestige of* major and institution). However, looking only at those who make it to college might be misleading.

is a college degree the great equalizer?
Finds u-shaped inheritance, lowest among college grads higher at low ed and above ed
social origin gaps are much smaller than gender gaps gendered effect lower social origin

Torche, updates Hout.  U shaped pattern of parental influence.   Looks at occupation, occupational status, respondent’s income and family income.  Finds effects for those without college degree, not much for those with advanced degree, but not much immobility by family class for those with a BA only.

Idea is that social capital that get from families with higher degrees is important.

Torche thinks of horizontal stratification, that at same level of education different value in the labor market and the institution matters. Trend is that working class are more likely study in more practical value of degree. (For undergrad level).  

nds in Chile high inequality is not associated with low mobility
highlights two theories:
1. resource perspective high inequality cements advantage, lowering mobility
2. competition perspective high inequality raises stakes more competition
highlights hierachy eects, eect social distance has on mobility and inheritance
eect eects current status has on future
in chile short hierarchy weaker, long hiearchy moves stronger

Maximally maintained inequality

characterizes educational transitions in Ireland, even as the prevalence of education has increased, relative odds of obtaining a level of education have remained constant as changes in education are driven by higher demand among higher classes. Raftery and Hout suggest that the mechanism explaining this phenomenon is rational choice theroy where differences in valuation of education affect an individual's likelihood of obtaining it.

Raftery and Hout in a
1993 study of educational transitions across cohorts. Their findings are that despite increases in the educational attainment across class of origin over cohorts, the relative risk (expressed as an odds ratio) of obtaining a given level of education by social origin remained constant over timethey refer to this phenomena which represents the ability of advantaged classes to maintain their relative advantage as maximally maintained inequality. Under maximally maintained inequality, it is expected that odds ratios will only converge when a level of education becomes saturated for an advantaged class.

Describes cohort trends in educational attainment in Ireland. The MMI proposition has 4 parts:

1. increases in education reflect increasing population
demand for education and a social upgrading of education for those of the highest social origins

2. an increase in the supply of education will lead to
an increase in the proportion of individuals acquiring that education across all social origins but the relative disparity in making an educational transition by social origin (often measured in the form of an odds ratio) will remain unchanged

3. an exception to 2 will occur when all individuals of a particular social origin complete the education levelwhen saturation occurs, the odds ratio of transitioning
by social origin will decline

4. (I don't think this was mentioned in the original 1993 denition of the MMI but is mentioned in Gerber and Hout's 2005 article) equalizing forces at one level of education may be offset by increasing stratication at a higher level.

Cross National Comparisons in the MMI Framework
Raftery and Hout find that these principles generally hold for the case of Ireland. In spite of government policies eliminating fees for secondary schooling, authors find that patterns of inequality in educational attainment by social origin hold. The authors suggest that MMI may be the result of rational decision making. In making a cost-benet analysis, individuals from higher social origins (and their families) may put a greater value on education. While government policies in Ireland were designed to lower the costs of continuing to secondary education which should increase attendance for individuals from lower social backgrounds, these subsidies were not suficient to offset the high opportunity costs of attending school versus working.

Gerber and Hout examine the principles of MMI looking at cohort educational attainment in the Soviet Union.

Secondary education in Ireland has expanded steadily in the 20th century, with a big surge in the late 1960s. In 1967, tuition fees for secondary education were removed and other egalitarian reforms were
implemented. This article analyzes the changes in the effect of social origin on educational transitions for the 1908-56 birth cohorts. The results show that overall class differences in educational attainment
declined, but class barriers were not removed; they simply became less consequential because the educational system expanded to the point where it could afford to be less selective. The results lead to the hypothesis of maximally maintained inequality and an explanation of it in terms of rational choice. The 1967 reforms appear to have had no effect on equality of educational opportunity. A closer study of the economic incentives for education at that time suggests why and suggests alternative reforms that might have been more effective without costing
more money.

Raftery and Hout suggests that dierences in
educational attainment might be explained by dierences in the cost benet
structure.

looksat Ireland education system finds same system but change in price allowing more lower ses to enter but very little change in actual entry of classes to secondary school characterizes prior system as case of maximally maintained inequality. Ireland was poor country but commitment to education 1964 changed Irish focus from protectionism to policies encouraging economic development use Goldthorpe classication system of class and cohort data to look at changes in education.

Over the period entry into secondary education dramatically increased esp as secondary school made free in 1967
education increased but positions increased more; however across cohorts, odds ratios of education by social origin remained same suggesting maximally
maintained inequality

Use cohort analysis to make longitudinal claims.

Adding social psychological variables to the Blau-Duncan model they considered mental ability (and found it to be correlated to SES of birth) and the influence of parents, teachers, and friends' expectations for the individual along with his own academic and educational aspirations to predicted actual education and occupational attainment.

Overall, their model was successful, they found personal and significant others’ aspirations for the individual and the individual’s academic performance all significantly influence on later adult attainment.

The Wisconsin model of status attainment first developed by Sewell and colleagues begins with the proposition that while the Blau and Duncan model
is interesting it fails to explain how father and child characteristics are related.

Sewell et al consider that mental and socio-emotional skills of children may be important mechanisms inducing this correlation (they call this social psychology, but their model seems to emphasize cognitive ability and aspirations). The Wisconsin model is empirically tested and more fully developed with the WLS work done by Hauser and colleagues who find signicant effects of aspirations, social support, and scholastic achievement on later oucomes.

-Blau and Duncan fail to include the psychological inputs in their model. Moreover, they omitted the social psychological factors which mediate the influence of the input variables on attainment.

-They argue that Blau-Duncan model fails to explain the connection between different variables. They claim that the social psychological variables explain the motive of people’s actions and provide a causal explanation of the relationship between family background and attainment (education and occupation). More important, the total explanation of variance might increase.

-In their model, significant others’ influence (parents’ encourage for college, teachers’ encouragement for college, friends’ college plans) is of central importance in this model.  The data and theory agree that SOI has direct effects on levels of edu and occ aspiration, as well as edu attainment. In turn, each aspiration variable appears to have the predicted substantial effects on its respective attainment variable. SOI is affected directly by SES and indirectly by MA through the latter’s effect on the AP.

-Variables explain 34 % of variance in occ attainment, 50% on educational attainment.