Blau&Duncan - r i.~ 21 Reported in the Los Aageles...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–12. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 4
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 6
Background image of page 7

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 8
Background image of page 9

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 10
Background image of page 11

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 12
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: r i :-.~ 21. Reported in the Los Aageles Times (Decem— ber 17, 1958), Part I, p. 16. 22. US. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Earned Degrees Confined by Higher Education Institutions, 1957—1958 (Washington, DC: US. Govern— ment Printing Office, 1959), p. 3. 23. Nicholas Malleson, "Student Performance at University College, London, 19484951,” Universities Quarterly, 12 (May 1958), pp. 288— 319. 24. See, e.g., C. A. Quattlebaum, FederalAid to Sta- dents for Higher Education Washington, DC: Us. Government Printing Office, 1956); and “Grants to Students: University and Training Colleges,” The Times Educational Supplement (May 6, 1955), p. 446. 25. “Students’ Expenses,” The Times Educational Supplement (May 6, 1955), p. 447. 26. R. H. Eckelberry, “College Jobs for College The Process of Stratification 35 Students," Journal of Higher Education, 27 (March 1956), p. 174. 27. Adjustment training is not a necessary ac— companiment of contest mobility. The shift during the last half century toward the in- creased importance of social acceptability as an elite credential has brought such training into correspondingly greater prominence. 28. Reported in Hadley Cantril, editor, Public Opinion 1935 ml 946 (Princeton: Princeton Uni— versity Press, 1951}, p. 186. 29. For one account of the place of, “public” schools in the English educational system, see Dennis Brogen, The English People {New York: Knopf, 1943), pp. 18 ~56. 30. A. H. Halsey of Birmingham University has called my attention to the importance of this fact. 31. Op. cit, pp. 24 —25. 4 THE PROCESS OF STRATIFICATION PeterM. Blau - OtisD. Duncan Stratification systems may be characterized in various ways. Surely one of the most im- portant has to do with the processes by which individuals become located, or locate them— selves, in positions in the hierarchy com— prising the system. At one extreme we can imagine that the circumstances of a person’s birth—winduding the person’s sex and the perfectly predictable sequence of age levels through which he is destined to passmsulifice to assign him unequivocally to a ranked status in a hierarchical system. At the oppo» Peter Michael Blair and Otis Dudley Duncan, ex— cerpt from "The Process of Stratification” from The American Occupational Structure. Copyright © 1967 by Peter M. Blau and Otis Dudley Duncan. Reprinted with the permission of The Free Press, a division of Simon (3: Schnster, Inc. site extreme his prospective adult status would be Wholly problematic and contingent at the time of birth. Such status would be— come entirely determinate only as adulthood was reached, and solely as a consequence of his OWE actions taken freely—“that is, in the absenCe of any constraint deriving from the circumstances of his birth or rearing. Such a pure achievement system is, of course, by— pothetical, in much the same way that motion Without friction is a purely hypothetical pos— sibility in the physical world. Whenever the stratification system of any moderately large and complex society is described, it is seen to involve both ascriptive and achievement principles. In a liberal democratic society we think of the more basic principle as being that of achieVement. Some ascriptive features of the system may be regarded as vestiges of an ear— Thus a spokesman for the Social Secun' her epoch, to be extirpated as rapidly as pos~ Administration Writes: sible Pubiic policy may emphasise measures designed to enhance or to equalize opportu— it would be one thrng 1f poverty hit at “Iv—“hopefully, to overcome ascriptive ob» random and no one group Were sm led stacles to the full exercise of the achievement out It 18 another thing to realize that principle. some seem destined to poverty almost The question of how far a society may re— from birdith their color or by the airstically aspire to go 111 this direction is economic status or occupation of their hotly debated not only 1n the ideological parents 1 arena but in the academic forum as Well Our contribution, if any, to the debate will consist Another officrally larger in submitting measurements and es— crrcumstances operative at birth but on the presumed effect of earl relative importance of the two principles In a achievement on subse given system 18 ultimately a quantitative one quent opportunities. . Thus the “dropout” is seen as facing "a life— our ingenuity to its limit in time of uncertain employment,”2 probable . assignment to jobs of ulterior status, reduced The governing conceptual scheme in the earning power, and vulnerability to various forms of social pathology. In this study we ever partially and crudely, blown conception of the ” ficatory or quantitative measurements taken cycle of poverty” or all those variables conceivably respond-v at successive stages. Ideally We should like to mg unfavorany to the achievement of "tho - have under ObSEI‘Va’inH a C0110“ 0f births, out”status. For practical reasons, . ..We Were following the individuals Who make up the severely iinuted in the amount of informa— cohort as they pass through life. As a practi~ tron to be collected. For theoretical rea— cai matter we resorted to retrospective q‘ues— sons, . . and in conformity With the tradition tions put to a representativc sample of sev— of studies in socral mobility, We chose to em- eral adjacent cohorts so as to ascertain those phasize new facts about their life histories that We as— m or another ysrs y the regression technique . . This linu— are how and to What degree do the circum— tation, however, is not merely an analytical stances of birth condition subsequent status? convenience. We think of the selected quan— and, how does status attained (Whether by mature variables as being sufficient to tie ascrlptton or achievement) at one stage of the scribe the major outirnes of status changes in we cycle affect the prospects for a subsequent the life cycle of a cohort Thus a study of the A Stage? The questions are neither idle nor id— relationships among these variables leads to f re losyncraflc ones. Current policy discussion a formulation of a basm model of the process 0 g and action come to a focus In a vaguely expii- of stratification In this chapter We conszder cated notion of the "mherrtance of poverty ” ‘ calcu also certain extensions of this model . . . - Cause s that 1 .ils to ' uphe» rative _ early lities. a life- nbable 3; iuced % iI'lOLlS asure- _ 1 full— rerty” pond»- drop- awere orrna— l rea- dition To begin with, we examine only five vari— ' ables. For expository convenience, when it is [necessary to resort to symbols, we shall tiesw ignate them by arbitrary letters but try to re— the reader from time to time of what ' the letters stand for. These variables are: V: Father’s educational attainment X: Father’s occupational status U: Respondent’s educational attainment W: Status of respondent’s first job ' Y: Status of respondent’s occupation in 1962 Each of the three occupational statuses is aled by [an] index . . . ranging from 0 to 6. The two education variables are scored 'onlthe following arbitrary scale of values f’rungs” on the “educational ladder") corre- pondmg to specified numbers of years of ormal schooling completed: No school Elementary, one to four years Elementary, five to seven years Elementary, eight years High school, one to three years High school, four years College, one to three years College, four years College, five years or more (i.e., one or more years of postgraduate study) Actually, this scoring system hardly ditfers 9m, 61 Simple linear transformation, or ” cod— “ 0f the exact number of years of school ompleted. In retrospect, . . . we feel that the Orehnplies too great a distance between in- _a_1.s at the lower end of the scale; but the liltant distortion is minor in View of the yismall proportions scored 0 or 1. basic assumption in our interpretation egression statistics—though not in their ation as such—has to do with the 1 or temporal ordering of these vari~ 'wsowewneo The Process ofStmtzficaiion 3'7 ables. In terms of the father’s career we should naturally assume precedence of V (education) with respect to X (occupation when his son was 16 years old). We are not concerned with the father’s career, however, but only with his statuses that comprised a configuration of background circumstances or origin conditions for the cohorts of sons who were respondents in the OCG study. Hence we generally make no assumption as to the priority of V with respect to X; in effect, we assume the measurements on these vari~ ables to be contemporaneous from the son’s viewpoint. The respondent’s education, U, is supposed to follow in time-~ and thus to be susceptible to causal influence from—the two measures of father’s status. Because we ascertained X as of respondent’s age 16, it is true that some respondents may have com— ' pletedschool before the age to which X per— tains. Such cases were doubtlessly a small minority and in only a‘minor proportion of them could the father (or other family head) have changed status radically in the two or three years before the respondent reached 16. The next step in the sequence is more problematic. We assume that W (first job status) follows l1 (education). The assump- tion conforms to the wording of the ques— tionnaire . . . which stipulated “the first full- time job you had after you left school." In the years since the OCG study was designed we have been made aware of a fact that should have been considered more carefully in the design. Many students leave school more or less definitively, only to return, perhaps to a different school, some years later, where- upon they often finish a degree program.3 The OCG questionnaire contained informa~ tion relevant to this problem, namely the item on age at first job. Through an oversight no tabulations of this item were made for the present study. Tables prepared for another study‘i using the OCG data, however, sugw gest that approximately one—eighth of the re- spondents report a combination of age at first nts, we have hardly any ssumption made here. If the I)qu of the men ' . argue that our re— spondents erred in thelr reports on first job years of ag We are inelmed to conclude that their reports see no sen Were realistic enough, and that it was our as~ that both U sumptmn about the meaning of the responses to some frat f at pI‘OVE‘d to be fallible. mentioned. The undamental difficulty here 23 con eeptual. If We insist on any umform sequence 1deahzed assum of the events Involved 1n accomplishing the The Process of Stratification 39 TABLE 41 Simple Correiations for Five Status Variables W Variable ‘ Variable r W u x V Y: 1962 occ. status .541 .596 .405 W: First-job status ~— 538 .417 U: Education m .438 X: Father’s occ. status V: Father's education p'rocessual sequence, which may be stated diagrammatically as follows: W» Xl—(LU—(W)-—(Y)- In proposing this sequence we do not over- look the possibility of what Carlsson calls "delayed effects/’5 meaning that an early. variable may affect a later one not only via in~ 'tervening variables but also directly (or per- haps through variables not measured in the study). In translating this conceptual framework into quantitative estimates the first task is to establish the pattern of associations between _ the variables in the sequence. This is accom~ - plished with the correlation coefficient. .‘ . . -:Table 4.1 supplies the correlation matrix on which much of the subsequent analysis is ' based. In discussing causal interpretations of these correlations, we shall have to be clear 011—“ given our assumption as to direction _ ausationmmeasures the gross magni- de of the effect of the antecedent upon the Onsequent variable. Thus, if rvw = .541, we _ say that an increment of one standard de- _ tion in first job status produces (whether dlIECtly or indirectly) an increment of just half of one standard deviation in 1962 'fional stems. From another point of Bare more concerned with net effects. first job and 1962 status have a corn— __t' edent cause—say, father’s occu~ e may want to state what part of .9 . the effect of W on Y consists in a transmission of the prior influence of X. Or, thinking of X as the initial cause, we may focus on the ex- tent to which its influence on Y is transmitted by way of its prior influence on W. We may, then, devote a few remarks to the pattern of gross effects before presenting the apparatus that yields estimates of net di— rect and indirect effects. Since we do not rew quire a causal ordering of father’s education with respect to his occupation, we may be content simply to note that rxv w .516 is some~ what lower than the corresponding correla— tion, rm = .596, observed for the respondents themselves. The difference suggests a height— ‘ - ening of the effect of education on occupa— tional status between the fathers’ and the sons’ generations. Before stressing this inter- pretation, however, we must remember that the measurements of V and X do not pertain to some actuai cohort of men, here desig- nated "fathers." Each “father” is” represented in the data in proportion to the number of his sons who were 20 to 64 years oid in March 1962. The first recorded status of the son him- self is education (LI). We note that rm, is just slightly greater than rux. Apparently both measures on the father represent factors that may influence the son’s education. In terms of gross effects there is a clear on daring of influences on first job. Thus rwu > rWX > rwv. Education is most strongly corre- lated with first job, followed by father’s occu— pation, and then by father’s education. 40 Peter M. Blau - Otis D. Duncan Respondent’s .394 .51 6 FIGURE 4.: Path coeai— X cien’cs in Basic Model of the Father’s - '224 process of stratification. occupation in 1962 (1") apparv strongly by educa— and to indicate that th tion than by first job, but our earlier discus» not part of the problem at hand sion of the first~job measure suggests We The straight lines r should not overemphasize the difference be— sured variable to anot tween va and rm. Each, however, is substan~ net) Influences The s tiaiiy greater than ryx, which in turn is rather effluent, such as pm more impressive than 1%. script The first subscrr Figure 4.1 is a graphic representation of the head of the path, or the effect: the second the system of relations 'ps among the five variables that we propose as our basic model. 1'; , ' The numbers entered on ("this resembles the the diagram, with convention for regressio n coefficients, where di‘ the first subscript refers to the “dependent” 5'13 . the exception of rw, are path coefficients, variable, the second to the “independent” ab- [suggesting the magnitude of the relation— variable.) In? ship betWeen the variables] First We must ban Finally, We see lines with no source indr- €10 come familiar With the conventions followed cated carrying arrows to each of the effect da’ 111 constructing the kind of diagram The lmk variables. These represent the residual paths, C03 betWeen V and X rs shown as a curved lrne standing for all other Influences on the van 1111 With an arrowhead at both ends ThIS rs to able In question, including causes not recog— are distinguish it from the other lines which are razed or measured errors of measurement, in" taken to be paths of influence. In the case of V and departures of the true relationships from ac} and We may suspect an influence r ' g addrtivity and linearity properties that are by from the former to the latter. But If the d1a~ assumed throughout the analysis. . . . - V 31‘? gram is logical for the respondents genera- An important feature of this kind of W“ tion, We should have to assume that for the fa- causal scheme is that variables recogmzed as Var thers, likewise education and occupation are effects of certain antecedent factors may, in P“ correlated not only because one affects the turn, serve as causes for subsequent vari— 111“ other but also because common causes lie bew ables. For example, If is caused by V and X, d3“ hind both, Which we have not measured The but it in tum influences W and Y. The. alga mt bi irectional arrow merely serves to sum up braic representation of the scheme is a system duc of equations, rather than the single equation more often employed in multiple regression analysis. This feature permits a flexible con- ceptualization of the modus operandi of the causal network. Note that Y is shown here as being influenced directly by W, ll, and X, but not by V (an assumption that will be justified shortly). But this does not imply that Vhas no influence on Y. V affects U, which does affect Y both directly and indirectly (via W). More» ‘ over, Vis correlated with X, and thus shares in the gross effect of X on Y, which is partly di— rect and partly indirect. Hence the gross ef~ feet of V on Y, previously described in terms of the correlation rw, is here interpreted as being entirely indirect, in consequence of VS effect on intervening variables and its corre- lation with another cause of Y. .' Path Coefficients _'Whether a path diagram, or the causal scheme it represents, is adequate depends on both theoretical and empirical considera— ons. At a minimum, before constructing the ' gram we must know, or be willing to as— ume, a causal ordering of the observed vari» b'les {hence the lengthy discussion of this after earlier in this chapter). This informa- nis external or a priori with respect to the ' which merely describe associations or 'elations. Moreover, the causal scheme 5" be Complete, in the sense that all causes presenting unmeasured causes as a re- actor, presumed to be uncorrelated x Beaming factors lying behind the _ question. If any factor is known or to operate in some other way it presented in the diagram in accor~ ‘ s causal role, even though it is d..- Sometimes it is possible to de» I c t111g implications from the inclu- ; The Process of Stratification 41 sion of such a variable and to secure useful es~ timates of certain paths in the absence of measurements on it, but this is not always so. A partial exception to the rule that all causes must be explicitly represented in the diagram is the unmeasured variable that can be as- sumed to operate strictly as an intervening variable. Its inclusion would enrich our un- derstanding of a causal system without in- validating the causal scheme that omits it. Sociologists have only recently begun to ap- preciate how stringent are the logical re» quirements that must be met if discussion of causal processes is to go beyond mere impressionism and vague verbal formula~ tions.6 We are a long way from being able to make causal inferences with confidence, and schemes of the kind presented here had best be regarded as crude first approximations to adequate causal models. ... Our supposition is that the scheme in Figure 4.1 is most easily subject to modifica— tion by introducing additional measures of the same kind as those used here. If indexes relating to socioeconomic background other than V and X are inserted we will almost cer— tainly estimate differently the direct effects of these particular variables. If occupational statuses of the respondent intervening be— tween W and Y were known we should have to modify more or less radically the right- hand portion of the diagram, as will be shown in the next section. Yet we should ar~ gas that such modification may amount to an enrichment or extension of the basic model rather than an invalidation of it. The same may be said of other variables that function as intervening causes. In theory, it should be possible to specify these in some detail, and a major part of the research worker’s task is properly defined as an attempt at such Speci— fication. In the course of such work, to be sure, there is always the possibility of a dis- covery that would require a fundamental re~ has a quasiuofficial policy discussion, sanction in US. public itis difficult to locate a s vantages) affects the ind into the labor marks tas opportunities for social "vicious circle,” teria for this con of its usefulness. are to be evaluated actuality, status” (presumably refer (I . How “difficult” is 1' is specifically meant by what are the opera cept, and what are tional exti— the limits ’clc tic (ii tic tional status is of the order of .4 (Assuming attenuation by errors of measurement, this should perhaps be revised slightly upward.) Approaching the measurement problem in an entirely different way, we find that the amount of intergenerational mobility be tween census major occupation groups is no less than sevenmeighths as much as would oc~ cur if there were no statistical association be tween the two statuses whatsoever, or five- sixths as much as the difference between the “minimum” mobility involved in the inter~ generational shift in occupation distributions and the amount required for "perfect" mo~ hility.9 Evidently a very considerable amount of “status modification” or occupational mobility does occur. (There is nothing in the data exhibited by Lipset and Bendix to indi— cate the contrary.) If the existing amount of modification of status is insufficient in terms of some functional or normative criterion implicitly employed, the precise criterion should be made explicit: How much mobility must occur to contradict the diagnosis 0 a "mi cious circle”? Next, take the postulate that occupa— tional status (of origin) is "associated with many factors” and that "each factor acts on the other” so as “to preserve . . . the indi— vidual famile position.” Here the exposi— tion virtually cries out for an explicit quantiw taiioe causal model; if not one of the type set forth in the first section of this chapter, then some other model that also takes into account the way in which several variables combine their effects. Taking our own earlier model, for want of a better alternative, as represen— tatiVe of the situation, what do we learn about the "associated factors”? Family “posi— tion” is, indeed, “associated with . . . educa— tion," and education in turn makes a sizable difference in early and subsequent occupa~ tional achievement. The Process of Stratification 43 [Aln accounting of the total variation in respondent’s 1962 occupational status (Y), yields these percentages: (1') Gross (or total) effect of 18.06 father’s education and occupation (ii) Education of respondent, independent of (i) (iii) All other factors, indepen~ dent of (i) and (ii) 24.31 57.62 Total 100.00 . . . Here we have imputed to the measures of “family position,” X and 1/: their total in— fluence, including such part of this as works through education; the 24 percent contribu: tion of respondent’s education refers only to the part of the effect of education that is net of the background factors. Still, education has a greater influence, independent of these factors} than they have themselves, operat~ ing both directly and indirectly. Ovsrshad— owing both these components, of course, is the unexplained variation of nearly 58 per- cent, which can have nothing to do with “perpetuating status.” Whatever the merit of these observa- tions, they should at least make clear that sta» tistical results do not speak for themselves. Rather, the findings of a statistical analysis must be controlled by an interpretation—- one that specifies the form the analysis will take—and be supplemented by further in— terpretations that (ideally) make explicit the assumptions on which the analyst is pro— ceeding. The form in which our results are presented is dictated by a conception of status achievement as a temporal process in which later statuses depend, in part, on ear— lier statuses, intervening achievements, and other contingent factors. In such a framework it may not be a meaningful task to evaluate the relative importance of different causal factors. Instead, attention is focused on how the causes combine to produce the end result. of a vicious circle. What is crucial in this case is not merely that Negroes begin life at a disadvantage and that this initial disadvan— tage, transmitted by intervening conditions, has adverse etfects on later careers. Rather, What happens is that, in addition to the ini~ tial handicap, the Negro experiences further handicaps at 'each stage of the life cycle. When Negroes and whites are equated with respect to socioeconomic circumstances of origin and rearing, Negroes secure inferior education. But it We allow for this educa— tional disadvantage as well as the disad~ vantage of low social origins, Negroes find. their way into first jobs of lower status than whites. Again, allowing for the handiw cap of inferior career beginnings, the han— dicap of lower education, and the residual effect of low socioeconomic origins—even with all these allowmceszegroes do not enjoy comparable occupational success in adulthood. Indeed, even though we have not carried our own analysis this far, there is good evidence that Negroes and Whites do not have equal incomes even after making al— lowance for the occupational status differ— ence and the educational handicap of Ne» groes.“L Thus there surely are disadvantaged minorities in the United States who suffer from a “vicious circle” that is produced by discrimination. But not all background fac- tors that create occupational handicaps are necessarily indicative of such a vicious circle of cumulative disadvantages; the handicaps of the Southern whites, for example, are not cumulative in the same sense. . . . A vicious circle of cumulative impediments is a distinc— tive phenomenon that should not be conu fuaed with any and all forms of differential occupational achievement. As noted earlier, the issue of equalitari- anism is one that has generally been more productive of debate than of cogent reason- ing from systematized experience. Without becoming fully involVed in such a debate here, we must at least attempt to avoid hav— The Process of Stratification 45 ing our position misunderstood. We have not vouchsafed a “functional interpretation” that asserts that somehow American society has just the right amount of stratification and just the appropriate degree of intergenera- tionai status transmission. We have indicated that it is easy to exaggerate the latter and, in particular, that it is possible seriously to mis— construe the nature of the causal relation~ ships in the process that characterizes status transmission between generations. in conclusion, one question of policy may be briefly mentioned, which pertains to the distinction between the plight of the minori- ties who do suffer disadvantages due to their ascribed status and the influence of ascribed factors on occupational life in general. To help such minorities to break out of the vi— cious circle resulting from discrimination and poverty is a challenge a democratic soci— ety must face, in our opinion. To advocate this policy, however, is not the same as claim— ing that all ascriptive constraints on oppor— tunities and achievements could or should be eliminated. To eliminate all disadvantages that flow from membership in a family of ori— entation—with its particular structure of in terpersonal relationships, socioeconomic level, community and regional location, and so (in—would by the same token entail elirni’ hating any colour: tages the family can confer or provide. If parents, having achieved a desir~ able status, can ipsofacto do nothing to make comparable achievement easier for their off— spring, we may have f’equal opportunity.” But we will no longer have a family system— at least not in the present understanding of the term. (This point has not been misunder stood in radical, particularly Marxist, ideol- ogies.) We do not contemplate an effortless equi- librium at some optimum condition where the claims of egalitarian values and the forces of family attachment are neatly balanced to the satisfaction of all. A continuing tension between these ultimately incompatible ten- Theodore W. Schultz dendes may, indeed, be a re qujsjte for social Cooperative Research ProJect No. 2258 progress. We 0 contend that both equityand 5 AEbDrEUIFVerSIW qu‘qlciugan’ 136? . _ . 1. 1m Casi for a Costa arsson,Socza Mo zztyan Cas Effectweness 1“ lb? P0 1‘7 ma tare(Lund.CWKGleerup,1958),p.124 deeper understandmg of the process of strat1~ 5, H, M, Bialock, }r_, Causal Inferences in cation than some! science and politics yet perimeatal Research (Chapel Hill: University can Claim, of North Carolina Press, 1964 eymour M Lipset and Remhard Bendix, oczal Mobzlz m Indasm'al Socze Berkeley mversity of Cal ornia Press 1959), pp.-198—- NOTES 99- 8. Haiti, p. 190. I. Mollie Orshanskx “Children of the Poor,” 9. US. Bureau of the Census, “Lifetime Occu a— Sooz'al Security Bulletin, 26 (July 1963). tional Mobility of Adth Males March 1962,” 2. Forrest A. Bogan, ” mployment of High errant Papa afion Reports, series P—23, no. 11 School Graduates and Dropouts in 1964,” Spe— (May 12, 1 964), table B. eta Labor Force Report, no. 54, US. Bureau of IO. er Pearson, “Or: Certam Errors with Re ard LaborStatistics (June1965),p. 643. to Multiple Correlation Occasionally Made ruce K Ec and, “College Dropouts Who by Those Who Have Not Ade uately Studied Came Back,” Harvard Educational Review, 34 ‘3 Subject,” Btometrilca, 10 (1944), pp. 181—» (1964), pp. _402~.~20. 87. 4 Bevery Duncan, Family Factors and School 11. See Herman P. Miller, Rich Man, Poor Man Dropout: 19204960, US. Office of Education, (New York: Croswell, 1964), pp. 90-w96. Human , Cultural, and Social Capital e 5 W INVESTMENT IN HUMAN CAPITAL Meodore W Schultz 11 faster rate than conventional (nonhw dge it Is not obw— muc . . ous that these skills and RnOWledge are a in? caplta: dang fire: It: girth 112;}, W91} form of capital, that this capital is in substan— ngmcesiizm 1;: 1;:slb:e::vid:l; 0193;:22 not part a product of deliberate investment, that increases m national output have been arge compared With_ the moreases of lancl, Theodore W. Schultz, excerpt from "Investment mamhours' p by Small repmduflble Cap 1' in Human Capital” from The American Economic m}- IHVesnnem 111 human capltaz IS Pmbably Review 51 (March 1961). Reprinted with the per— the major explanation for t mission of the publishers. M t: we are we 5"” “ s22 ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 11/14/2011 for the course SOCIOLOGY V93.0001.0 taught by Professor Arum during the Fall '10 term at NYU.

Page1 / 12

Blau&Duncan - r i.~ 21 Reported in the Los Aageles...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 12. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online