Hi all! This week we’re discussing the following readings:
- Gerber, Theodore, and Sin Yi Cheung. 2008. “Horizontal Stratification in Postsecondary Education: Forms, Explanations, and Implications.” Annual Review of Sociology 34:299–318.
- Torche, Florencia. 2011. “Is a College Degree Still the Great Equalizer? Intergenerational Mobility across Levels of Schooling in the United States” American Journal of Sociology 117(3): 763-807.
Carefully go over my PowerPoint presentation with voiceover where I explain important ideas and concepts covered in the readings. (To listen to the voiceover you need to go to presentation mode)
Now watch the video below where Florencia Torche herself talks about her paper.
Lecture Posts Questions:
On the comments section below, address the following questions (answers should be at least 100 words in length and posted by Sunday – This is how participation points are assessed (worth 30% of your final grade!) Please save your comments in a safe document before attempting to post it.
- From my PowerPoint presentation, what still isn’t very clear? Any questions, thoughts or comments you would like to share?
- From the readings are all concepts clear?
- Summarize the main takeaways from the video.
- What is your opinion, why do graduates of higher ranking-institutions on average have higher subsequent earnings than graduates from lower-ranking institutions? Is it a function of:
- Human Capital
- Signal Effects
- Social Capital
- Selection Effect
Or Maybe it’s a combination of these factors? Or maybe something else?
5. From Torche’s paper, what do you think might explain this “U-shaped” pattern of parental influence that she finds (The intergenerational association is strongest among those with less than a college degree; it substantially weakens among college graduates and then regains strength among advanced-degree holders) ?
This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
1. From my PowerPoint presentation, what still isn’t very clear? Any questions, thoughts or comments you would like to share?
– In this week’s PowerPoint, we discuss horizontal stratification in higher education. Most of the ideas were clear and made sense to me. I liked how you added examples of vertical versus horizontal stratification. This gave me a better perspective on what the authors are trying to explain and review. I also find it interesting why graduates of higher quality institutions have a higher income than graduates of lower quality institutions. I also found it interesting that the data in the Torche reading proves how college can be very beneficial for both lower class and higher class. Overall I think this week was pretty straightforward.
2. From the readings are all concepts clear?
The first reading, (Gerber, Theodore, and Sin Yi Cheung. 2008), attempts to review the effects of horizontal distinctions on the labor market outcomes of college-educated workers. These findings were very interesting. I would like to ask if there were more factors that contribute to why graduates of higher institutions have a higher income than graduates of lower quality institutions. Their findings were that human capital, signal effects, social capital, and selection effect all are factors.
In the second reading, Torche, Florencia. 2011 attempts to find how a college degree can create “meritocratic power” through horizontal stratification studies. The reading was pretty difficult because of the vocabulary. However, I did understand some of the findings. I think the most important finding was Social mobility and how intergenerational association is strongest among those who do not have a college degree. It substantially weakens among college graduates and then gains strength among people who graduated with degrees. This information is important for understanding how college degrees affect each generation if they can move horizontally or vertically in the social classes.
3. Summarize the main takeaways from the video.
– In the video, Torche explains that if we help disadvantaged children throughout their education, then we would promote social mobility. It is important that we know what mobility is when discussing educational backgrounds. Torche compares the people with college degrees and non-college degrees and says that people with degrees promote a higher chance of social mobility. She explains why she used intergenerational data, to examine the past, present, and future. The impacts of family background on one’s ability to reach social mobility. She also explains that family background is independent of a child’s ability to do the job. Torche then discusses how disadvantaged students who go for a higher degree tend to attend schools with low selectivity. Lastly, Torche concludes how students with disadvantaged backgrounds need to prepare and learn about the American education system that would allow them to advance in their careers. People are continuing to earn an advanced degree but it is still very small but is growing.
4. What is your opinion, why do graduates of higher ranking-institutions on average have higher subsequent earnings than graduates from lower-ranking institutions? Is it a function of:
Human Capital
Signal Effects
Social Capital
Selection Effect
Or maybe it’s a combination of these factors? Or maybe something else?
– I think all these functions play a role in answering why graduates of higher-ranking institutions have a higher earning than graduates from lower-ranking institutions. This is because we invest in our children with the best type of education which is defined by human capital. Signal effects help people, with the right and higher-ranking credentials, get their name out there for possible employers to hire them. Social capital helps with networking and with a higher quality of the networks the higher quality of networking. This can be for networking for a job or getting out of a financial crisis. The selection effect explains how attendance at a higher quality institution may be associated with higher earnings because external variables like social backgrounds both increase the probability of enrolling in a higher-quality school. In the end, I believe all factors contribute to why higher-ranking institutions earn a higher income than graduates from lower-ranking institutions.
5. From Torche’s paper, what do you think might explain this “U-shaped” pattern of parental influence that she finds (The intergenerational association is strongest among those with less than a college degree; it substantially weakens among college graduates and then regains strength among advanced-degree holders) ?
– This “U-shaped” pattern of parental influence that she finds is the fact that if family members have the money and were educated in America. People who strive to get a higher degree are those who can afford to stay in college. As Torche said in the video, we as a society try to help people graduate college and stay debt-free. Also, parental resources play a role in seeing if they can afford or influence the child to go to college.
1. From the powerpoint presentation, Horizontal Stratification in Higher Education, everything is clear to understand. In the presentation, there were four key terms that were theoretical reasons as to why there is a notable difference in higher quality institutions versus low quality institutions. Human capital, signal effect, social capital and selection effect. It is clear to see why these would correlate to inequalities within education. All four terms kind of work together to create this anomaly in the country. Those factors distinguish higher quality from low quality educational institutions. Higher quality institutions will better prepare scholars after their time is finished with the institutions. However, low quality institutions lack the resources to provide similar outcomes as higher quality institutions.
2. “Horizontal Stratification in Postsecondary Education: Forms, Explanations, and Implications” by Theodore Gerber and Sin Yi Cheung and “Is a College Degree Still the Great Equalizer? Intergenerational Mobility across Levels of Schooling in the United States” by Florencia Torche discusses mobility in terms of education. In Gerber’s reading, Gerber discusses horizontal dimensions of education based stratification. Gerber discusses this connection through institutional outcomes. Higher quality institutions are able to better equip scholars than what lower quality institutions provide. In terms of the labor market, individuals who attend high quality institutions are much more prepared than individuals from low quality schools. However, in Torche’s reading, Torche discusses intergenerational association towards education. The findings showed that individuals with low educational attainment show a strong correlation to intergenerational association.
3. The Stanford University video with Florencia Torche discusses education as the key to social mobility in this country. Torche talks about individuals from advantaged and disadvantaged backgrounds and how these factors affect social mobility. If we were to aid disadvantaged youth towards college then finishing college, that would be promoting social mobility. Torche brings up research from 1970 which showed that college degrees would increase mobility in individuals. It also showed that individuals with just a highschool degree or some college showed limited mobility. However, individuals with college degrees showed higher rates of mobility. The reason for this was that college degrees would provide the necessary skills for individuals to succeed in the labor market.However, making it to college is dependent on family background but once individuals graduated, social background would no longer affect how well they do. At that time, Torche said that a college degree was considered a great equalizer but many things have changed since then. Through Torche’s research, she found that individuals with less than a highschool diploma had an association between parents income and own income of 0.24(the closer to 0.50 the less mobility, the closer to 0 means more mobility). While individuals with at least a highschool diploma, the number dropped to 0.18, which showed more mobility. Individuals with some college had an association of 0.19 while those who attained a BA had an association of 0.09. However, individuals with advanced degrees showed an association of 0.33, which is pretty high. Torche found that individuals (a small portion) from disadvantaged backgrounds that get an advanced degree tend to not do as well as individuals from advantaged backgrounds. Torche’s research suggests three factors that contribute to the immobility with advanced degree attainers. The three factors were, graduate school selectivity, type of degree or field of study, and type of occupation. Torche found that individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds who attain an advanced degree are more likely to attend schools with low levels of selectivity. Individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds are also more likely to choose fields of studies that do not maximize their chances of socioeconomic success. However, individuals from advantaged backgrounds tend to go to professional fields. The jobs disadvantaged background individuals and advantaged background individuals take are very different. Torche recommends that the country should support individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds so they can reap the rewards of advanced degrees and to promote more social mobility.
4. I believe graduates of higher ranking-institutions on average have higher subsequent earnings than graduates from lower-ranking institutions due to all four factors. Human capital, signal effects, social capital and selection effect contribute to how well individuals do and how prepared individuals are in the labor market. Individuals from higher ranking institutions can attain more out of their degrees than individuals from lower ranking institutions.
5. From Torche’s paper, I believe family background might explain this “U-shaped” pattern of parental influence that Torche finds. Individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds compared to individuals from advantaged backgrounds shows a major difference in educational attainment. Individuals from advantaged backgrounds are able to pursue higher education and attend higher ranked institutions with no issues, however individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to have the same opportunities.
1. The presentation was clear and a good review after reading the two articles. I felt like both articles provided a lot of information and it was a little difficult to keep up while reading them, so going over the PowerPoint was a good way for me to review it and organize my thoughts. I don’t have any specific questions, but I look forward to learning more about why the intergenerational occupational association curve is U-shaped.
In reference to Gerber and Cheung’s paper, I also wonder what could be done about the inequalities between organizations. While watching the PowerPoint, I started to wonder if somehow closing the gap between prestigious and less/non-prestigious universities is possible and what impact that would have.
– Unfortunately, I don’t think there is much that can be done about decreasing the prestige that surrounds universities such as Harvard and MIT, but perhaps lessening the stigma around city and state universities is a good place to start.
2. I was a little overwhelmed by Gerber and Cheung’s piece because there was just so much information and so many examples given in a relatively short paper. I wish the paper focused on just a few of the studies and went more in depth because I feel I would have a better idea of what their argument is. Aside from that, I thought many of their claims were interesting, especially the one about people subconsciously choosing majors that “match” their gender because they’ve been raised/conditioned to behave/think in a way that correlates to those majors.
Similar to the first reading, I felt that there was a lot of information and references that made it hard to keep up. That being said, I think I understood the general idea that obtaining a bachelor’s degree lessens the influences of one’s socioeconomic background and that the influence goes back up with the obtainment of an advanced degree. However, I felt that the explanation for the latter half of the U-shaped influence of socioeconomic influence was still a little unclear.
Something I found interesting was the comment Torche made towards the beginning of the paper in regards to selective institutions. She mentions that graduates of more selective schools tend to have higher wages, and their selection is largely based on academics, and that upper-class children are more likely to be selected (769). When I read this, I couldn’t help but think, “But why are the upper-class kids more likely to be accepted/academically advanced?” I find it unreasonable to assume that wealthier kids are inherently smarter than middle and working class children, so I wish Torche went further into this finding. If she did, my guess is that she would find that the parents of wealthier kids have more resources to pay for tutoring, test prep to make them more academically competitive.
3. The video was really helpful in summing up her paper/research and explaining how she collected and analyzed her data as well as explaining her findings. I also found the visual aids (bar graph) to be helpful. Watching the video after completing the reading also aided in just processing all of the information that she provided. I think what I appreciated most, however, was that she offered recommendations on how to move forward. Although they were a little vague and easier said than done (i.e. encourage low-income students to graduate with little debt), it was nice to hear some of her ideas because I felt that her paper was missing that.
4. I think students with degrees from higher-ranking institutions have higher earnings because of the signal effect, human capital and social capital. Even just the term “private school” signals elitism which has connotations of wealth, selectivity, and prestige. This goes even further, with Ivy Leagues being shown in movies and TV shows as the “end-all-be-all” of schools. From a young age, we are conditioned to believe that private and Ivy League schools offer an education that is inherently better than state and city schools, so I wouldn’t be surprised if seeing one of those “elite” schools on a resume signals to an employer that a candidate is automatically qualified. I also think merely graduating from these universities increases human and social capital. Graduating from one of these high-ranking institutions raises one’s human capital because they are in some way now “elite” themselves because they obtained a degree and alums of a prestigious school. The people they meet there will also be equally elite, which raises social capital and could potentially open doors to other opportunities that could increase various forms of capital.
5. Perhaps it is parental expectation on career choice that has caused this U-shaped influence of intergenerational association. In my experience, many of the people I know who are doctors or professionals in other fields either come from parents in the same field or have children of their own in the same field. For example, a dentist whose father and brother are both dentists, and a chiropractor (doctorate of chiropractic care) whose children decided to become medical doctors. Maybe these specialized fields are “passed down” in a way, with parents encouraging their children to follow in their footsteps and children hoping to be just like their parents one day. I think that these intergenerational career choices could be why we see this uptick in intergenerational association at the advanced-degree level.
1. The powerpoint slides were very clear and helped me understand the readings more thoroughly. The slide I had the most interaction with is slide 5 where the professor lays out the 4 main characteristics that reasons why graduates from higher quality colleges/universities are bound to higher earnings than those that come from lower-quality institutions. The slide also helps me get a more clear definition in this topic such as horizontal stratification is the reference to the distribution of children from the same social class at institutions with different qualities that fall under the same level of education such as the same major.
2. The Gerber reading was rather more difficult to focus on an idea because of the amount of information that was being given, I feel like the author wanted to highlight all the possible characteristics and in doing so the main idea and the real focus started to vanish, I feel like there was no need for “other institutional characteristics” because it takes away from the main dilemma. Overall, it was a very informational reading and had a lot of backup evidence. The second reading was rather controversial to me because it touched upon a topic that I feel closely related to, the question of a college education and earning higher wages, kids that come from a wealthy background tend to buy their way into a high-quality education which in most cases takes away from that kid’s level of intelligence, going to a highly prestigious school and earning more as a consequence does not entail that someone from a poorer family was not more qualified for that occupation than that kid whose parents paid for top tier education when there should not be levels to qualitative educations everyone should receive same quality education and it would be to natural selection and hard work and dedication to see who has it within them and who do not.
3. The video was very clear since the topic in discussion is something that I am in connection with. It also touched on things that we have previously discussed before such as in cases of mobility where 1 means perfect immobility meaning that if your parents are at the bottom of the income distribution line then so will you. It was a nice review and overall understanding.
4. I believe that graduates of higher ranking-institutions on average have higher subsequent earnings than graduates from lower-ranking institutions because of a set of reasons. It is the function of human capital because attending a high quality school would open the doors for students to find and develop skills that they probably could not get elsewhere, signal effect would make it easier for somebody from Harvard to get a job at a law firm than it would be for someone from CUNY Law School, then social capital as we know means that attending a prestigious college means that you will have connections and network with people that hold a large social rank and lastly selection effect just like social capital there is a biased to a certain group of social classes and with that school so the people who come from that background easily have a free pass into this level of income
1. The Powerpoint was straightforward and provided clarification on many concepts. While reading the texts I was a bit confused by the term horizontal stratification. However, I believe some examples include honor and AP courses. Also, sometimes when registering for classes at CCNY students are barred from enrolling in certain courses because they are designated for Macaulay honor students. Therefore, horizontal stratification may be the difference in curriculum depending on a students academic abilities and how students are grouped by major. During the powerpoint the selection effect sparked a thought in my head. Selection usually refers to how many students are offered admission into a school out of a larger pool of candidates. However, this can also apply to programs even within public schools such as Macaulay honors at CCNY and the SEEK program. Therefore, I am curious as to whether students who are admitted into special programs from within public schools have higher incomes (in the long term) than those who aren’t and whether they compare to those of students who attend high quality schools.
2. The main points made in Horizontal Stratification in Postsecondary Education: Forms, Explanations, and Implications.” Annual Review of Sociology, is that students who attend high quality educational institutions tend to have higher incomes than those who attend low quality educational institutions. The authors argue that human capital, signal effects, social capital and selection effects may all contribute to this trend. Another important pattern brought up in this reading is that women are underrepresented in the STEM field. In contrast, sectors like education are dominated by women. Interestingly, women dominated fields such as education tend to be low paying as compared to fields dominated by men. In, “Is a College Degree Still the Great Equalizer? Intergenerational Mobility across Levels of Schooling in the United States” American Journal of Sociology, the main finding is that intergenerational association is strongest for those with a high school diploma, then decreases for college graduates and increases again for people pursuing advanced degrees. This was true especially for men across social class mobility, occupational statues (SES), Individual earnings and total family income.
3. Florencia Torche begins by explaining the value that is applied to education as a tool for social mobility. She encourages society to help marginalized children enroll and graduate from college to promote social mobility. Research from the 1970s suggests that social mobility was greater for those with a college degree than those with some college but no degree and those with high school diplomas. College degrees help people develop the necessary skills to succeed in the workforce despite the social background of the individual. Torche questioned whether a college degree was still a great equalizer as it was in 1970. To answer this question she conducted a study using five data sets to represent as most Americans and their families as possible. 1 equals absolute immobility where 0 is complete dissociation between generations. She found that intergenerational association was high up until an individual graduated college. Surprisingly, the association increases for students pursuing degrees higher than a bachelors. Torche believes this increase occurs because students from disadvantaged backgrounds that pursue masters degrees don’t perform as well as their counterparts. She suggests that three factors that affect this are selectivity, type of degree and field of study and occupation. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds usually attend schools that aren’t selective and choose fields of study that don’t maximize the growth of their socioeconomic status. Meanwhile, advantaged students take jobs in fields such as STEM.
4. I think graduates of higher ranking-institutions on average have higher subsequent earnings than graduates from lower-ranking institutions because of all these factors. A significant portion of the student body of these schools come from families that practice what Lareau called “concerted cultivation”. In other words, these students are engaged with organized activities that increase their human and social capital from a young age. The activities they participate in make them more ideal students at elite universities who want “well-rounded” students meaning students who don’t just attend class but play sports, do internships, volunteer, etc. Unfortunately, most of these students come from middle class families because the middle class families possess more information and experience on how to get higher returns from a college degree. However, I do believe that university names weigh a lot on a resume although graduates from elite schools aren’t necessarily better than those who attend lower quality schools. In fact, the quality of a school is completely subjective, some schools have just been categorized as “good,elite” because they are highly selective.
5. In the video Torche explained that students from low socioeconomic backgrounds that pursue graduate school don’t have the same success as their counterparts. She believes this is because they enroll in schools that aren’t selective and their fields of study don’t necessarily have the highest salaries. I agree with Torche and believe this explains the “U” shape. I believe people from higher socio economic status chose fields that require degrees higher than a bachelors and a lot of these degrees fall into STEM. In my opinion this highlights inequalities in high schools. Low-income schools don’t have the resources to offer STEM related courses past the basics and although technology has sort of become a necessity in education it still remains a luxury. For example, in my high school there weren’t enough laptops for every student and many laptops had defects. We also didn’t have the physical space for science labs nor the budget for equipment and supplies. Therefore, I believe a major reason students from low socioeconomic backgrounds that pursue graduate school choose the careers they do because they aren’t exposed to more mathematical and scientific fields of study at an early age. In consequence, they end up with debt and careers that don’t compensate well for the delayed entrance into the workforce.
Anthonio Roye
WEEK 13
1. From my PowerPoint presentation, what still isn’t very clear? Any questions, thoughts or comments you would like to share?The powerpoint once again gave brief and concise information on the two readings. In the Gerber and Cheung reading it explained the differences between horizontal and vertical stratifications and how some acriptive factors influence earnings.These factors were human capital (quality of professors), signal effect (attendance at high quality institutions signal employers to choose these employees), social capital (network and social connections), selection effect (increased cognitive ability or social background influencing earnings independent of institutions) and field of study, and how these affect post secondary experiences including earnings. In the Torche paper, discussing why college matters, it showed that degree holders have higher earnings, are healthier etc. than those with lower qualifications. Many things including horizontaland ascriptive factors like parental resources, social class, occupation status, individual earnings and total family income affect this and it was found that the socioeconomic background matters less in persons who attained college degrees. Also in 1965, males pursued more advanced degrees, but this drastically changed in 2005 when females took the lead.
2. From the readings are all concepts clear?The reading was pretty clear and discussed socioeconomic inequalities in people who attained education after highschool. It discussed how a college education impacts social mobility (verticaldimension- how one moves up the social ladder based on field of study, type and quality of college etc.) and the factors in the horizontal dimensions (social origin, type of education, parental income etc.) that affect the former. Other factors such as gender and race were also examined to see their effect on the field of study a student would pursue and the economic returns of such.This reading was also clear and highlighted how the choice in occupation was based on socioeconomic background for several generations were lower in graduates of colleges when compared to other students with lower qualifications, that is, highlighting the power of a college degree. The social mobility was based on occupation, socioeconomic status and class and showed that people without college degrees had strong intergenerational association, but those with degrees did not have an intergenerational association. However, the association returned among people who attained advanced degrees, creating a U-shaped pattern of parental influence.
3. Summarize the main takeaways from the video.The video discusses the effect of a college degree on social mobility. Colleges provided skills to succeed regardless of one’s family background. However, making it to college is dependent on family background, but once they finish college, the family background is not of great importance anymore. They then did a study with some surveys to figure out if college was still the great equalizer currently. They found that people with advanced degrees do experience socialmobility. Also many things like the type of school, the field of study, occupation etc. does affect this mobility. It was also found that people who are disadvantaged (lower socioeconomic status) tend to choose degrees (humanities) that have less earnings while those who are advantaged choose more professional fields (medicine, law, business etc.) which does contribute to their overall earnings.
4. What is your opinion, why do graduates of higher ranking-institutions on average have higher subsequent earnings than graduates from lower-ranking institutions? Is it a function of:
● Human Capital
● Signal Effects
● Social Capital
● Selection Effect, Or Maybe it’s a combination of these factors? Or maybe somethingelse?
I believe it is a combination of all 4 factors. Human capital in the sense that the quality of professors does have a great impact on the learning capabilities of students and better teachers are known to be in higher ranking-institutions. Many studies have shown that the better the quality of the teachers, the more the students learn and are able to apply their knowledge in the working world. Signal effect is important as the attendance at high quality institutions signal employers to choose these employees over others because it is well-known that these students have higher cognitive ability when compared to the others of different institutions, which makes them more eligible for the working world. Social capital encompasses the network and social connections of the students, their families and professors are also very important, as people from higher ranking-institutions tend to know each other and are able to ‘put in a word for’ their students to get more profitable jobs. Finally, the selection effect is also very important as an increased cognitive ability or social background irrespective of institutions attended is known to be advantageous and these students will in turn have higher earnings.
5. From Torche’s paper, what do you think might explain this “U-shaped” pattern of parental influence that she finds (The intergenerational association is strongest among those with less than a college degree; it substantially weakens among college graduates and then regains strength among advanced-degree holders) ?I believe this is so because of educational and labor market factors. The difference in mobility is directly dependent on parental resources and so this impacts the field of study the students choose, the type and quality of college they choose as well as their earnings. Also, I believe this is so because there are way more females pursuing more advanced degrees than males and there is still a gender-bias gap in the working world today. Women even with better qualifications are paid less than males and are still considered less eligible for some jobs that are considered higherpaying. These jobs include: the ones in the STEM field, which the world regards as a ‘man’s job’and so females are usually turned away from them.
1) The powerpoint was very clear and made concepts from the reading easier to understand. The slide on ascriptive factors was very interesting to me because, in my opinion, this is where most of the inequality in education comes from. Even the merit-based factors in accessing post-secondary education seem to be affected by ascriptive factors. Your parents background and socioeconomic background affect the educational opportunities you receive that would make you a good candidate for postsecondary institutions. Even the opportunities to access extracurricular activities, unrelated with academics, that make you stand out is affected by your parent’s socioeconomic status since those may cost money, parents may not have the time wealthier parents have to take you to those activities, or the knowledge and resources to find these activities.
2) The ideas and concepts from the reading were clear. I really liked that Torche’s paper distinguished between individuals with a bachelor’s degree and individuals with an advanced degree, because as she mentions I feel as if most of the data and paper’s I’ve don’t make that distinctions, but it is a very important one as we can see from her paper. Advanced degrees are expensive, since most of us exhaust our financial aid completing our bachelor’s and have none left for a Master’s. It was therefore very surprising to see that those from disadvantage background who get an advance degree do not go on to do well socioeconomically. Speaking of advanced degree, I’ve recently read a couple of articles stating that there’s been an increase in the amount of people getting a PhD, but that there are not enough jobs for all of them particularly in academia. I was wondering how true this is and if there is any papers/data on it?
3) The main idea of the video is to find whether college is the great equalizer as it seemed to be in the 1970s. Although, a lot has changed since the 1970s, getting a college degree means that your own income is less dependent on your family’s background and income, allowing for social mobility. The association between parent’s income and child’s income is much lower for those who got a bachelor’s than for those who completed high school or less. This association, however, strengthens for those who completed advanced degree. Torche found that those with advantageous backgrounds select better graduate programs, degrees that result in higher income (ex: medicine) and so have higher paying occupations.
4) I think that individuals at higher ranking-institutions have on average higher subsequent earnings due to human capital, the signaling effect and social capital. As we learned from the Hout reading and video, colleges themselves are more responsible for graduation rates, meaning that top universities are doing a better at making sure that its students graduatings (struggling students had high graduation rates of the top universities they went to vs high achieving students had the dropout rates of the middle range universities they attended). This indicates to me that some colleges do a better job at imparting skills and providing a better educational environment for its students which are skills that serve them in the labor market. However, the signaling effect and social capital I think are the biggest factor. Going to a prestigious college does exactly that, it makes your resume more prestigious. The name of the school you go to carries a lot of weight to employers because it signals to them that you are better than the applicant that went to the public university (even if you really are not). Social capital is also important because those who went to top universities come from advantageous backgrounds in the first place, so they have a very big and rich social network that they can use to get jobs. These universities are also a good place at find social networks that can later help you. I am unconvinced by the selection effect because I don’t think those being selected by top universities are necessarily “the smartest,” instead it is their socioeconomic background that makes it easier for them to make it into those colleges. Also, as I said before, we learned from the Hout video that struggling students do well in top universities meaning that is more about the college itself.
5) The “U-shaped” pattern was confusing, but the way I understood it was that she is measuring intergenerational status association, not necessarily social mobility. Therefore, we see this U-shape that results in strong status association among those who get an advanced degree because the people getting those degree who are from advantaged backgrounds also go on to do well like their parents. This would result in a higher status association because they have similar high income as their parents, meaning that the association would be stronger (their income was not very independent of their parent’s income). The struggling students who get an advanced degree do not go on to do very well because of the reasons Torche mentions, meaning that they don’t get the best salaries and so the status association between them and their parents is high. This is the way I understood this, but I might be confused because I was not expecting a U-shaped pattern either.
I think when looking at what majors certain groups of people choose we should look at their backgrounds and also how those majors and fields are promoted to those groups of people. In the last 4-6 years I noticed the push for young women and especially women of color to enter into STEM which I feel is a good push for many reasons but has always been promoted to these young women in a competitive way. Where it is women “infiltrating” and “conquering” this male-dominated field as a means to go against the status quo instead of just being an interesting field where you make a lot of money. It could also be marketed in a way that supports the “average” woman the same way teaching or other humanities fields are promoted.
A degree has more of an effect on social mobility when the person’s parents did not have a degree, and background has a huge effect on major selection.
I feel people who get into many high-ranking schools get in through their connections and those same connections help them get very high-paying jobs after college and if it is not the same connections it is new connections they have made while in the high-ranking school.
As more and more people get a certain level of education that level of education becomes less valuable so the next generation has to the extra steps to have a higher education than the generation before them. I feel like we can see this within CUNY with the new programs emerging with masters and Ph.D. programs and how making them more accessible can allow for more CUNY students to have higher credentials.
Everything from the powerpoint was clear. The pyramid on slide 4 was helpful in explaining the different between horizontal and vertical stratification.
Yes, I found the Field of Study part of reading 17 the most interesting because education yields the lowest return. I don’t understand why the people who are teaching the future gets paid the least when they’re extremely important. I guess it goes back to our discussion (I believe it was this class) of how CS jobs were not paid well, but once men got into those careers, the pay went up.
In the 1970’s, college was the great equalizer and research supported college graduates being separated from their social background. For less than high school, high school and some college, there is a high association between their own income and their parents. For a BA, that association goes down. For an advanced degree, it jumps back up. Her research points to three reasons why those who go for an advanced degree have a higher association.
I think it is a combination of those factors, but especially social capital and signaling effect. Networking is very important and are common in college events. Higher quality institutions may have more connections at higher ranking companies, so they are able to get these companies to come and speak to the students. As a result, students have better chances of getting a job because they know the people in the company (alumni as well). On top of that, going to a higher quality institution signals to employers what kind of person you are. Because these schools are exclusive and everyone is doing whatever they can to get into them, the employer may shift perspectives in how they see the person.
In the video, Torche mentions three attributes for those who get an advanced degree which are graduate school selectivity, field of study and type of occupation. Because disadvantaged students usually go to schools that are low in selectivity and choose a non-beneficial field of study, their association to their parent’s income is higher. Although some people who get masters earn more, they might also have to pay back more if they are taking money out to continue schooling. In my own personal experience, I only know of three people who got their masters and their degrees were unrelated to their parents. For two of them, they used the masters degree as a way to enter a new field, so it was like getting a new bachelor’s but building on it. For instance, one of the people I know studied biology, worked and found out what they liked, so they went back to get a degree that allowed him to teach. For the other person, they studied art in college and for their masters, they studied HR and was able to grow a career out of it.
From my PowerPoint presentation, what still isn’t very clear? Any questions, thoughts, or comments you would like to share? From the Powerpoint presentation the breakdowns of both readings gave me a better understanding especially when trying to understand the relationships shown in charts and graphs to explain educational attainment and percentage of graduates between different demographics. This Powerpoint was short, precise, and straightforward to me. The most interesting slide to me was slide 4 which gave a clear visual representation of horizontal and vertical stratification.
From the readings are all concepts clear?
From the reading written by Florencia Torche I found the concepts about the weight of having a College degree towards opportunities and socioeconomic class somewhat clear. I was able to make connections from preexisting knowledge about intergenerational mobility. I would have been lost if it weren’t for the highlighted text throughout the reading.
In my opinion the Gerber and Cheung reading was more difficult for me to understand. I relied on the powerpoint to really get an understanding of the main points.
Summarize the main takeaways from the video.
Some of the main takeaways from the videos focus around the weight a college degree would have and the impact it would have on social mobility. Having a degree would increase social mobility because of the resources, skills, and connections associated with a degree, however this was back in 1970s. The big question was if having a degree would be the great equalizer for social mobility. There was an assumption that a students social class was going to be heavily dependent on your parents social class. Students who make as far graduate school have a disadvangte when coming from a lower classed family compared to students from higher classed families.
What is your opinion, why do graduates of higher-ranking institutions on average have higher subsequent earnings than graduates from lower-ranking institutions? Is it a function of:
Human Capital, Signal Effects, Social Capital, Selection Effect
Or maybe it’s a combination of these factors? Or maybe something else?
In my opinion I think all three of the four functions stated play a role to why graduates of higher ranking institutions have higher earnings than graduates from lower ranking institutions. Human capital could impact a students influence skills and knowledge, it would make sense that advantaged students would be more efficient in this domain due to the money and resources they have. Social capital helps with better connections, in the world we live in today getting a good job is always about networking. Selection effect matters sometimes, I see it as a job taking a student from Harvard than one more CCNY.
5. From Torche’s paper, what do you think might explain this “U-shaped” pattern of parental influence that she finds (The intergenerational association is strongest among those with less than a college degree; it substantially weakens among college graduates and then regains strength among advanced-degree holders)?
From Torche’s paper the reason for the “U-shaped” pattern of parental influences she finds because of the intergenerational influence that is portrayed throughout generations. There is a sort of expectation or standard when coming from a higher class and resources that influence the process of being “successful”. Unlike lower class individuals who don’t have that standard due to parents being at the bottom percentile therefore keeping the intergenerational mobility constant.
1. From my PowerPoint presentation, what still isn’t very clear? Any questions, thoughts or comments you would like to share?
The PowerPoint presentation is pretty straightforward and breaks down the articles in a very helpful manner. One part from the presentation that I found really helpful is the comparison between vertical and horizontal stratification as there were many examples provided for each concept. Furthermore, it was interesting to see how certain concepts that we have discussed in previous lectures (such as human capital and signal effect) continue to show up like in the “Horizontal Stratification in Postsecondary Education: Forms, Explanations, and Implications” reading. Though by now we have a pretty good understanding of what these concepts are and the role they play, it’s still helpful to be reminded of them. The discussion of “Is a College Degree Still the Great Equalizer? Intergenerational Mobility across Levels of Schooling in the United States” in the presentation, emphasized the fact that some factors (such as the social economic background) have less of a role once individuals have attained a college degree.
2. From the readings are all concepts clear?
Though the “Horizontal Stratification in Postsecondary Education: Forms, Explanations, and Implications” article by Theodore P. Gerber and Sin Yi Cheung was much shorter than the second article, it definitely felt denser as there was so much that was covered. However, this makes sense as it’s more so a review paper. That being said, there were many sections in the reading that stood out to me such as the review on gender segregation within the fields of study. I found it interesting that some argue that academic preparation only helps explain a small part of why the gender gap in fields of study continues to exist. Instead, it’s argued that other factors such as preferences and effects of college experience that are gender-specific play a greater role in this gap. The second reading was pretty straightforward and the study itself was interesting to read about. I think I really enjoyed this week’s reading due to the fact that both include data that reviews the gender differences in education. This second article also reveals a gap going from 1965 to 2005, for example, how 4.34% of men obtained advanced degrees in 1965 meanwhile only 1.10% of women did.
3. Summarize the main takeaways from the video.
The main takeaways from the video include the discussion on how having a college degree plays a role in mobility and whether it remains to play the role of the equalizer like it once did. There’s discussion on research from the 1970’s that revealed how college degrees were considered to be the “great equalizer” as it helped increase mobility. However, Florencia Torche then discusses the study conducted in order to view if this role of a college degree remains. Some findings include how like the 1970’s, a college degree does indeed remain to be an equalizer but there are still some factors to take into consideration. For example, the study revealed how those who obtain advanced degrees, coming from a disadvantage background, tend to experience immobility. Torche mentions three factors that help contribute to this immobility which includes: graduate school selectivity, the type of degree or field of study, and the type of occupation.
4. What is your opinion, why do graduates of higher ranking-institutions on average have higher subsequent earnings than graduates from lower-ranking institutions? Is it a function of:
Human Capital
Signal Effects
Social Capital
Selection Effect
Or Maybe it’s a combination of these factors? Or maybe something else?
In my opinion, I believe that graduates of higher ranking-institutions on average have higher subsequent earnings than graduates from lower-ranking institutions due to all the mentioned factors above. Each one plays role in providing some sort of advantage to the individual of higher ranking-institutions. For example, the signal effect leads to the advantage of having a higher probability of being acknowledged by a possible employer. Let’s say they attended a ivy league university, this would create a “signal” to the employer, allowing them to stand out more so than the individual from a lower-ranking institution. Another way in which these factors explain this difference in earnings includes the role that social capital has. Those who attended higher ranking-institutions are more likely to gain effective social capital as they leave these institutions having gained valuable connections. These connections are valuable as they would be formed with other individuals that are also high achieving thus, there are many benefits gained from these formed connections.
5. From Torche’s paper, what do you think might explain this “U-shaped” pattern of parental influence that she finds (The intergenerational association is strongest among those with less than a college degree; it substantially weakens among college graduates and then regains strength among advanced-degree holders)?
There are a few reasons that might explain this “U-shaped” pattern of parental influence that
Torche finds which includes possibly parental expectations and the role of socioeconomic background. In terms of the role that socioeconomic background has, it influences the type of education these individuals with advanced degrees receive. The graduate education they receive is then correlated to other influential factors such as the field of study and they type of programs they strive for. That being said, if they’re at a disadvantaged standing point related to their background, this would overall affect the type of advanced education they are able to receive and thus, also affecting their obtainment of their advanced degree. The same can be said for those at an advantaged as this also plays a role in the type of advanced education they receive. However, unlike those at a disadvantage, they would most likely not face the same obstacles.
From the powerpoint, the concepts seem mostly clear to me, and it further helped me understand the readings and the meaning behind “horizontal stratification” and “ascription” which I didn’t know what they meant before. I guess I was confused as to why parental resources would influence advanced degree holders more than those with a bachelor’s degree. I would think that it would be the other way around. However after I watched the video posted, I understood the reason as to why this U-shaped pattern occurred.
Gerber and Cheung (2008) discuss horizontal stratification and how institutional characteristics such as college quality and type, and college experiences such as major, academic performance, and pathway can influence labor market outcomes. According to the article, graduates from higher quality institutions may have higher earnings than graduates from lower quality institutions. This may be because of human capital, social capital, signal effect, and selection effect. Also, earnings may depend on a student’s field of study. For example, those in stem related fields receive higher returns, whereas those in the humanities field will receive lower than average. Findings on social science majors and their returns are mixed.
The study by Torche (2011) discusses intergenerational mobility across levels of schooling in the U.S. and analyzes it through class, occupational status, earnings, and household income. Findings show how intergenerational association is low among those with a bachelor’s degree and strong among those with low education attainment. However, it also becomes strong with advanced degree holders as well. This shows a U-shaped pattern of parental influence. People who attain a college degree have a socioeconomic standing that is independent of their parents and background, however access to college in general is very dependent on parental resources. It’s important to note that women over the course of many years have caught up with men and the gender gap in college attainment has reduced dramatically.
The video is about mobility which seems to be much higher for those with a college degree than those who don’t have a degree because it provides the necessary skills for people to succeed in the labor market, no matter their social origins and family background. Social background didn’t matter anymore for how well someone did in life once people made it to college and graduated. Torche explains her study and the U-shape pattern that is discussed on intergenerational mobility. Those with a bachelor’s degree have the least intergenerational association while those with less than a college degree and an advanced degree have a strong association. She explains why people with advanced degrees are immobile. Youth from disadvantaged backgrounds need the skills, support, knowledge, and guidance to go to college, stay in college, graduate in time, and avoid overwhelming debt so that they can benefit from mobility returns of their degree and reap the rewards.
I believe graduates of higher ranking-institutions on average have higher subsequent earnings than graduates from lower-ranking institutions because of a combination of all the functions, which are human capital, social capital, signal effect, and selection effect. They all play a role in stratifying outcomes in the labor market based on just the type of college you go to and the educational experience you receive. High quality institutions may pass on cognitive and noncognitive skills more efficiently which is important for increasing human capital and productivity returns. These higher ranked schools may be more efficient because they have more resources and better quality professors. Also, attending a higher quality institution can signal their ability to employers and increase their chances in getting hired. People who graduate from higher quality institutions may also have valuable social capital such as important networks and connections that can provide them good opportunities, jobs, and high earnings. Lastly, cognitive ability or social background can increase the chances of attending a higher ranked institution which can lead to positive effects on earnings, which is called selection effect. All these reasons together will increase the chances in someone succeeding and gaining high earnings when attending a high ranked institution as they are more advantageous and have more networks, resources, and credentials from a high profile elite institution.
The “U-shaped” pattern of parental influence that Torche finds (The intergenerational association is strongest among those with less than a college degree; it substantially weakens among college graduates and then regains strength among advanced-degree holders) may occur because those who don’t have a college degree wont experience social mobility and will more likely have similar income as their parents. People with a bachelor’s degree are more likely to have increased earnings and experience upward mobility. However, people with advanced degrees are immobile as well because of graduate school selectivity, their field of study and degree, and the job they take after graduation. Those who are disadvantaged are more likely to choose schools that are not so selective and not too expensive, and choose fields of study that won’t maximize their socioeconomic success. They receive earnings that are not as much as they expect relative to their advanced degree, and may be stuck with debt which explains why they are immobile and don’t really benefit and reap the awards from their degree. People who are advantaged will try to go into fields such as medicine, law, or business, which can increase earnings.
1. From my PowerPoint presentation, what still isn’t very clear? Any questions, thoughts or comments you would like to share?
As per usual, the PowerPoint presentation provided a clear overview of the readings and better my understanding of the concepts introduced. For this week, we discussed horizontal stratification, which is the difference between the types of education within the same educational category. I appreciated that before going into the detail, you have explained the difference between vertical and horizontal stratification through the pyramid diagram and by providing examples. It allowed me to contemplate the concept of specialized high schools. Many students attempt to enter those schools by taking entrance exams, which are known to be difficult if they did not receive tutoring since they wouldn’t teach the material in regular education, because it is known to be a high quality institution. Since specialized high schools are known to be high-quality institutions, the students enrolled there will have better educational opportunities than the students attending regular high schools.
2. From the readings are all concepts clear?
The first reading “Horizontal Stratification in Postsecondary Education” was difficult to follow since there was a lot of information to take in, but the PowerPoint presentation had provided a clear overview of it. However, the reading had provided insight into how students who attend high-quality institutions would eventually have higher incomes than students who attend low-quality institutions. To further their notion, they explain how four theoretical reasons (human capital, signal effect, social capital, and selection effect) partake in this effect. The second reading by Torche emphasized how having a college degree can open doors to many opportunities to advance in social mobility regardless of your parents’ socioeconomic background.
3. Summarize the main takeaways from the video
In the video, Torche explains her research regarding whether college is a great equalizer as it was in the 1970s. Results still remain that a college degree remains as a great equalizer since attaining a college degree can provide a positive effect on social mobility. However, they also note how family background affects an individual’s motivation to continue with their studies. Individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds may not have the same outcome as individuals from advantageous backgrounds due to limited resources. Furthermore, Torche explains other factors that can affect individuals such as selectivity of the school, the field of study, and type of occupation. Towards the end of the video, Torche recommends policies that would help youth from disadvantaged backgrounds to stay in college so they can benefit from mobility returns of a college degree.
4. What is your opinion, why do graduates of higher-ranking institutions on average have higher subsequent earnings than graduates from lower-ranking institutions? Is it a function of:
• Human Capital
• Signal Effects
• Social Capital
• Selection Effect
Or maybe it’s a combination of these factors? Or maybe something else?
I believe graduates of higher-ranking institutions on average have higher subsequent earnings than graduates from lower-ranking institutions from a combination of these three factors, which are human capital, signal effects, and social capital. Human capital is built from the high quality of education that student receives and being able to use those skills in the real world, and from their peers from that same institution. The signal effect comes to play when the student applies to a certain job and/or university, they would immediately be associated with a prestigious school and have a higher chance to be enrolled due to their high cognitive ability. Social capital comes to play from not only their family background but the resources the institutions may provide for their students such as personal recommendations.
5. From Torche’s paper, what do you think might explain this “U-shaped” pattern of parental influence that she finds (The intergenerational association is strongest among those with less than a college degree; it substantially weakens among college graduates and then regains strength among advanced-degree holders) ?
I am still unsure of the “U-shaped” pattern of parental influence, but I believe it involves what Torche mentioned in the video regarding the limited resources people from disadvantaged backgrounds have over the many opportunities people from advantageous backgrounds have. For instance, people from advantageous backgrounds are able to provide resources to help their children advance in their careers. However, from those resources, it is possible for parental expectations to come to play. It is most likely, that individuals from advantageous backgrounds to follow their parents’ career paths as well. Furthermore, the field of study an individual chooses can play a role as well such as the STEM field.
I found this week’s power point to be pretty clear and consise, as well as being informative. The power point focuses on horizontal stratification in higher education and it also offered to contrast horizontal with vertical stratification. I find the power point to be very useful as a guide to help me prepare for the week’s readings. I also find that if I have any trouble with the articles revisiting the power point helps clear anything out for me or give me a better understanding because it ties everything together.
This week’s readings were pretty challenging and hard to grasp onto, specifically the second reading by Florencia (2011). What I did understand from this particular reading was how it focused on social mobility, integrational association and meritocratic power. The reading mentioned that meritocratic power is based off of a college degree and the education that an individual received, because it is considered an advantage. Both articles, did focus on this topic about education achieved after high school and they both talked about race and gender just to get a better understanding of how those traits affect a person’s chances at achieving further education.
The video focused on higher education and questioned whether a college degree is an equalizer or whether it would increase mobility. The video included a study that was conducted in the 1970’s that showed that importance of a college degree and how it used to be an equalizer. Later the video explained that since the 1970s this has changed due to disadvantage students depending on their backgrounds and the paths they chose to pursue in their education.
In my opinion graduates of higher ranking institutions on average have higher subsequent earnings than graduates from lower ranking institutions for a number of reasons and a combination of reasons such as the ones presented in the question. Ultimately, in my opinion students that come from a higher ranking college average higher due to social capital. This means that people are presented with more opportunities and are taught better in this school because of the networks that surround them. They become apart of a specific society that offers them the resources to get a better education.
1. From the powerpoint presentation was very clear I don’t really have any questions for the PowerPoint. I believe that the articles were pretty self explanatory and easy to understand as well as follow. What I found to be really interesting is how each topic we discussed earlier this semester had an effect on this week’s lecture post.
2. With the first reading, Gerber and Cheung (2008) topic was horizontal stratification in postsecondary education, meaning graduates who went to more prestigious colleges have a better chance of receiving a good income than graduates who have attended a college that isn’t very well known. High-quality institutions have a higher effect on their post-graduate students in human capital, signal effect, social capital and selection effect. For Torche, she was discussing whether or not a college degree is a great equalizer. In her article she analyzed the mobility between generations across America, she considered a diverse measure of socioeconomic well-being used by the sociological and economic literature, including the families social class, occupational status, individual earning, and the overall family income. I think both of these articles were very clear and well written.
3. The main takeaways from the video was that Torche said that if er helped the disadvantaged youth to go to college then we would be able to promote social mobility. the individuals who had a college degree would have a higher social mobility compared to people who only have a high school degree or went to college but didn’t receive a degree. It provided the necessary skills for people to succeed in the labor market, family connections, and all those factors that have very little to do with the ability to do a job. Getting into college in the past as well as the present is still very much based on family background. Meaning, once people made it to college and graduated, their social backgrounds didn’t matter anymore for how well they do in life. Advantaged people take jobs that are more lucrative that people who come from disadvantaged backgrounds.
4. I think graduates of higher ranking-institution on average have a higher subsequent earning than graduates from lower-ranking institutions is because they reach for careers such as lawyers, doctors, finances, civil engineers etc. jobs that are very high paying. For human capital it is the students who invest in going to a high ranking institution with a high ranking degree compared to others. The signal effect is the employees who have the most experience for the job position they are looking into. Social capital is when an individual who went to a high ranking institution ends up having a wide social connection that can help them move up in the social capital ladder that will benefit them. Last but not least with selection effect it is when you work a high paying job because you went to a high ranking institution which gave you a better advantage compared to someone who did not go through that.
5. From Torche’s paper the “U-shaped” pattern influence that she finds is actually what the family members that have money and that were also educated in the United States. The individuals who have an advanced degree with an advanced background like their parents did have an association with the U shape that Torche spoke about in her article.
1. The powerpoint presentation was clear and it helped clarify a few things in the readings for me as usual.
2. I found the readings to be clear and also informative. It was interesting to be able to see things from a different perspective and how things could be related.
3. The videos main takeaways were based on the mobility that comes with education and obtaining a college degree. One of them mentioned how there is more chance for social mobility with having a college degree. The video mentions that people who come from disadvantaged backgrounds don’t do as well as people from more advantaged backgrounds because factors such as attending schools with low selectivity and studying to get degrees in things that would not bring them social mobility. Overall the video highlighted how obtaining a degree or advanced degree can be an equalizer for those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds to be able to compete with those that already are at an advantage.
4. The reason that graduates of higher ranking institutions may have higher subsequent earning than graduated from lower-ranking ones because of the weight it holds by being well known, which can also be a signal effect by giving employers the idea that they are more competent and more qualified to do the job just because of where they went to school. I think it is a combination of all though because in terms of social capital, they are able to build connections with people that may or may not have a lot of other connections that may come in handy if there is a need to find work or even put in a good word on top of recommendations. Human capital can also be a factor because on top of the signaling effect it might look good going to a higher ranking school because of the quality of education one might get that is associated with it. Lastly selection effect can be a function as well because it is thought that people that go to really good schools are high performers. People that graduated from a lower-ranking school are just as competent and also skilled as those who have gone to higher-ranking ones.
5. I feel like part of it makes sense and can be explained. In terms of intergenerational association with less than a college degree can make sense because it would be harder for them to possibly move out of similar status than their parents, since it would be less opportunities available to help move up as they don’t have much education. It does somewhat make sense that a person with a college degree has less dependence on their background, giving them a chance to do more than their parents especially coming from a less advantaged background. Overall I think taking into account background to achievements and paths that intergenerational association is important depending on background, because depending on it , it may be assumed or expected to do well or not at all or even when doing something to better oneself success is also something to look forward to.
1.From my PowerPoint presentation, what still isn’t very clear? Any questions, thoughts or comments you would like to share?The PowerPoint presentation was very clear, it provided a lot of conceptual explanations, which made it easier for me to understand this week’s reading. The slide explains the difference between horizontal stratification and vertical stratification and how some influencing factors affect income, and why graduates from high-quality institutions earn more than graduates from low-quality institutions (the question of why universities are important, A university degree has a higher income than those with a low degree).
2.From the readings are all concepts clear? The article “Horizontal Stratification in Postsecondary Education: Forms, Explanations, and Implications” mainly explains the difference between horizontal stratification and vertical stratification, as well as how human capital, signal effects, social capital and choice effects affect income. “Is a College Degree Still the Great Equalizer? Intergenerational Mobility across Levels of Schooling in the United States” Through research, it is found that people with higher education have higher incomes than those with lower education and a series of problems.
3.Summarize the main takeaways from the video. This video discusses how college degrees can promote social mobility. The social mobility of people with high education is greater than that of people with low education, and universities can help people develop skills. Torche discussed that people with disadvantaged backgrounds are often not cautious in choosing a school or degree.
4.What is your opinion, why do graduates of higher ranking-institutions on average have higher subsequent earnings than graduates from lower-ranking institutions? Is it a function of：Human Capital, Signal Effects, Social Capital, Selection Effect Or Maybe it’s a combination of these factors? Or maybe something else? I believe that the combination of these factors is the reason why the average follow-up income of graduates from higher education institutions is higher than that of graduates from lower institutions. Because human resources and social capital represent that this school has the best teaching equipment and good teaching talents, and the students who can enter this school are usually middle-class families, and their family background and social resources are the best . Signal Effects and Selection Effect are good schools to attract more outstanding people to join and make them stronger.
5.From Torche’s paper, what do you think might explain this “U-shaped” pattern of parental influence that she finds (The intergenerational association is strongest among those with less than a college degree; it substantially weakens among college graduates and then regains strength among advanced-degree holders) ? This “U-shaped” pattern of parental influence may be related to family background. Usually parents have a high degree of education and are engaged in a profession in a certain field, they will introduce their own resources to their children, and even guide their children to pursue the same profession. They believe that their children can do better than themselves or earn higher income.
1. Everything from the Powerpoint was clear. I do not have any questions as of now.
2. All concepts are pretty clear for the most part.
3. Some main takeaways from the videos are the discussion of helping disadvantaged children in education and understanding social mobility while doing so. It then discussed schools with low selectivity are typically chosen from disadvantaged students who decide to pursue higher education. Another takeaway is the importance for students who come from a disadvantaged background to learn about the education system to make way for them to advance.
4. In my opinion, all of these factors have a significant impact on the graduates from a higher ranking-intuition than from a lower ranking-institution. From social capital used by networking to human capital used investing in a students education, those who are from a wealthier background are in a more advantageous position. As for the selection effect, they are typically more likely to be chosen for higher payer careers due to being at a higher ranking-institution.
5. A possible explanation would be individuals from low socioeconomic backgrounds typically don’t have the same success rates as their counterparts when attending graduate school. Torche believes this is because they are attending schools that are not necessarily selective enough nor do they have a specific course structure in reference to their major.
1, The power point was pretty clear to me. I was a bit confused on the vertical and horizontal stratification but the examples you provided made everything more clear to me.
2. The findings from the readings were quite interesting and informative. I did have some trouble with the Torche reading however after watching the video I was able to understand her research and findings more. The readings discuss the factors that influenced earnings which are human capital, signal, effect, social capital and selection effect.
3. Torche talks about how if they help disadvantaged youth to college and then help them graduate then that will promote social mobility. She mentions what she used for her research which is panel study of income dynamics, general social survey, national longitudinal survey of youth (1990 and original cohort), baccalaureate and beyond survey. From her research she found that people with less than a high school diploma their association is .24, this with the diploma its .18, some college .19, and with BA its at .09 so a college degree does remain a great equalizer. Three facts that contribute to the immobility among those who get an advanced degree; graduate school selectivity, type of degree of field of study, type of job after graduation.
4. Besides the factors given, I think graduates of higher ranking-institutions have higher subsequent earning than those of lower- ranking institutions because of the institution itself. You can have the same qualification as your candidate but it all depends on the school you went to. The school holds power. If two people are applying for a job in a high earning field however one person attended Duke and the other one attended their local community college. You guys took similar courses and same gpa but it’s most likely the person that attended Duke will get the job just because they went to that school.
5. The U shape pattern she finds id if your family has money and any other education because a high school one then their child will attend college as well and money won’t be an issue. An example of this is two doctors I know, one of them owning their own practice. Their children attended high ranking institutions because money was not an issue to pay for them and the children ended us receiving a degree in finance and engineering. Two fields with high paying jobs.
From my PowerPoint presentation, what still isn’t very clear? Any questions, thoughts or comments you would like to share?
The PowerPoint presentation was very clear. They were mainly explaining the ideas from the readings because there was an overwhelming amount of information. I liked the examples for Vertical and horizontal stratification because it was straightforward and easy to understand—the illustrations for that but regarding other concepts mentioned in the readings for this week.
From the readings are all concepts clear?
The readings were overwhelming due to a lot of information. However, the PowerPoint helped clear out the confusion.
Summarize the main takeaways from the video.
In the video, Torche explains how since the 1970s, the college education system has changed, yet it is a great equalizer when it comes to mobility. To this day, college attendance depends on the individual’s family background. If the parents were at the bottom of the social ladder, it was hypothesized the children would be at the bottom of the ladder, and higher the status of the parents, it is highly likely the children will make it to the top of the social ladder. She also mentions social mobility depends on what kind of college an individual attends, the field of study, and the occupation they do after graduation. Although a college degree is a great equalizer, some aspect of it depends on the quality of the institutions. For example, suppose an individual attends a high-quality institution. In that case, they are more advantageous because they could afford it compared to low-advantage students who are more likely to poor than their parents. This leads more advantage people to take more professional jobs such as in the field of medicine, engineering, etc. As a suggestion for policies, Torche suggests the low advantage students should be taught to stay in school and teach them more skills.
What is your opinion, why do graduates of higher ranking institutions on average have higher subsequent earnings than graduates from lower-ranking institutions? Is it a function of:
Human Capital
Signal Effects
Social Capital
Selection Effect
Or maybe it’s a combination of these factors? Or maybe something else?
Graduates of higher ranking institutions have higher subsequent earning than graduates from lower-ranking institutions based on human capital, signal effect, social capital, and the selection effect. Wealthy parents are highly likely to provide their children with the highest skills by paying for their extracurricular activities to enhance their skills compared to their counterparts (Human Capital). As we have discussed throughout the semester, advantages people are more likely to associate with people in the same social background (Social Capital). Hence, they can get high-paying jobs compared to people with more minor economic advantages. The signal effect shows the people hiring that advantaged people have attended more prestigious colleges. They automatically group those people to be more skilled and intelligent and more suitable for job positions.
5. From Torche’s paper, what do you think might explain this “U-shaped” pattern of parental influence that she finds (The intergenerational association is strongest among those with less than a college degree; it substantially weakens among college graduates and then regains strength among advanced-degree holders) ?
I did not understand the U-shaped pattern clearly, however from what I understood, children from Lower-income backgrounds do socially and economically equal to their parents, and individuals with higher education can do better economically and in every aspect of social status because of their parents who are most likely did better than their counterparts.