Please read below statement:
Cookiemamma87
SieveIncubatorTempleHub.pdf
ANRV348-SO34-07 ARI 7 June 2008 16:31
Sieve, Incubator, Temple, Hub: Empirical and Theoretical Advances in the Sociology of Higher Education Mitchell L. Stevens,1 Elizabeth A. Armstrong,2
and Richard Arum3 1 Department of Humanities and Social Sciences in the Professions, Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development, New York University, New York, New York 10003; email: [email protected] 2 Department of Sociology, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405; email: [email protected] 3 Department of Sociology, New York University, New York, New York 10003; email: [email protected]
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2008. 34:127–51
First published online as a Review in Advance on April 9, 2008
The Annual Review of Sociology is online at soc.annualreviews.org
This article’s doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134737
Copyright c© 2008 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved
0360-0572/08/0811-0127$20.00
Key Words
higher education, stratification, educational homogamy, social networks, globalization
Abstract Higher education lacks an intellectually coherent sociology; varied re- search on colleges and universities is dispersed widely throughout the discipline. This review initiates a critical integration of this scholarship. We argue that sociologists have conceived of higher education systems as sieves for sorting and stratifying populations, incubators for the de- velopment of competent social actors, temples for the legitimation of official knowledge, and hubs connecting multiple institutional domains. Bringing these lines of scholarship together facilitates new theoretical insights and research questions.
127
Click here for quick links to Annual Reviews content online, including:
• Other articles in this volume • Top cited articles • Top downloaded articles • Our comprehensive search
FurtherANNUALREVIEWS
A nn
u. R
ev . S
oc io
l. 2
00 8.
34 :1
27 -1
51 . D
ow nl
oa de
d fr
om w
w w
.a nn
ua lr
ev ie
w s.
or g
A cc
es s
pr ov
id ed
b y
S an
J os
e S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
it y
on 0
6/ 02
/2 1.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
ANRV348-SO34-07 ARI 7 June 2008 16:31
INTRODUCTION
There may be no institution more fundamen- tal to sociology than higher education. Most sociologists are employed at colleges and uni- versities (Erskine & Spalter-Roth 2006). The discipline’s existence as a distinctive intellec- tual enterprise is predicated on the departmen- tal structure of the modern university (Abbott 1999, 2001, 2002). Yet higher education re- mains without an intellectually coherent soci- ology. Instead, the varied and empirically rich sociological work on higher education is scat- tered throughout the field, creating at times a narrowness of analytic vision and inhibiting the benefits that can accrue from integrated schol- arly discourse. Our review moves to redress this situation by integrating the diverse soci- ological scholarship on higher education, cre- ating new dialogue among heretofore distinct research traditions.
In order to suggest the benefits of a more co- herent sociology of higher education, we first discuss the dominant approaches to the sub- ject within U.S. sociology. We identify some of the central metaphors sociologists have invoked or implied when describing higher education, explaining that sociologists have conceived of higher education systems as sieves for regulat- ing the mobility processes underlying the al- location of privileged positions in the society, incubators for the development of competent social actors, and temples for the legitimation of official knowledge. We add that sociologists have not yet fully appreciated the plurality of in- stitutional domains in which higher education is implicated: the labor market and the larger economy, the professions and the sciences, the philanthropic sector, the family, and the nation- state. The peculiar location of higher educa- tion at the intersection of multiple institutions encourages us to argue that higher education should also be seen as a hub, connecting mul- tiple social processes that often are regarded as distinct.
We use these metaphors as heuristic devices, recognizing that each has its limits. Metaphors, by definition, are imaginative interpretations
and summaries of reality; their job is to illumi- nate features of a phenomenon that more mun- dane descriptions would not reveal (Lakoff & Johnson 1980). Because our intent is to spur novel analytic paths through a substantive field that many may think already well traveled, the use of provocative if perhaps imperfect imagery seems justified.
Following Brint (2000), we define the field of higher education as encompassing those or- ganizations awarding postsecondary academic degrees and whose legitimacy is formally rec- ognized by organizational peers (through such mechanisms as accreditation, credit transfer, and student exchanges). The field includes a vast range of organizations that vary dramat- ically in size, wealth, mission, composition, clientele, and prestige. These organizations en- gage in extensive collaboration, but the field also is highly competitive: Criteria for mem- bership, as well as rankings within the field, are politically contested and historically variable.
We devote particular attention to the more elite segments of higher education. We do so even while recognizing that, in terms of ef- fects on individual life outcomes, some of the most dramatic changes over the past 50 years have been the expansion and vocational dif- ferentiation of lower tiers of national higher education systems (Attewell & Lavin 2007, Roksa 2008). Our paper and others in this volume explicate this fact in varying degrees of detail. Selective four-year colleges and uni- versities, however, historically have been es- pecially important both substantively and the- oretically because they exemplify many other social processes—legitimation, incubation, and institutional interconnection—that sociologists have found worthy of examination. As these processes are among our primary interests here, and we are undertaking a review of existing scholarship, our orientation skews toward more elite schools. Nevertheless, we suspect that the processes we examine are operative throughout the higher education sector, though perhaps in variable ways.
Universities are crucial sites for the pro- duction of knowledge in modern societies, and
128 Stevens · Armstrong · Arum
A nn
u. R
ev . S
oc io
l. 2
00 8.
34 :1
27 -1
51 . D
ow nl
oa de
d fr
om w
w w
.a nn
ua lr
ev ie
w s.
or g
A cc
es s
pr ov
id ed
b y
S an
J os
e S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
it y
on 0
6/ 02
/2 1.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
ANRV348-SO34-07 ARI 7 June 2008 16:31
sociologists may be right to describe them as knowledge factories (Parsons & Platt 1973, Aronowitz 2000). Yet despite recent, admirable efforts to conceive of academic knowledge pro- duction synthetically (see Guetzkow et al. 2004 for a review), scholarship on this topic gen- erally has developed through distinct and dis- parate literatures in the sociology of science, the professions, and sociological theory. Lim- its of space and authorial expertise oblige us to emphasize the role of higher education in the legitimation rather than the production of knowledge, though we recognize the deep mu- tual implication of these two processes.
We begin our analysis with sociology’s strong research tradition on schooling and stratification because it is where disciplinary in- terest in higher education has been most fer- vent and where the consequences of higher ed- ucation have been most carefully detailed. We believe that sociologists’ concern with stratifi- cation and inequality should continue to be cen- tral to disciplinary scholarship on higher edu- cation, but also that progress in this area would be aided with insights from the sociology of knowledge, culture, organizations, and politics.
SIEVE: HIGHER EDUCATION AND SOCIAL STRATIFICATION
Sociologists long have recognized that school- ing is central to stratification in modern so- cieties, as the allocation of occupational posi- tions is done largely on the basis of educational attainment. The notion that formal education might serve as a meritocratic mechanism of so- cial mobility has been an animating ideal for many social scientists and social reformers for over a century (Labaree 1997, Meyer 1986). Nevertheless formal education has been less of a ladder than a “social sieve” ( Jencks & Riesman 1968), regulating access to privileged social po- sitions. Max Weber’s core insight that edu- cation has a dual character—both facilitating and constraining social opportunity—has in- formed most subsequent stratification scholar- ship, from Sorokin’s (1959 [1927]) foundational work on the role of education in the regula-
tion of social mobility, to Shavit and colleagues’ more contemporary research (e.g., Müller & Shavit 1998, Shavit et al. 2007, Shavit & Blossfield 1993). Recognition of a fundamental relationship between formal schooling and so- cial status has informed virtually all sociological research on higher education to date. Our sum- mary of this research is decidedly schematic; other authors in this volume provide more de- tailed syntheses (Buchmann et al. 2008, Gerber & Cheung 2008, Grodsky et al. 2008).
With The American Occupational Structure, Blau & Duncan (1967) transformed sociolo- gists’ approach to stratification from a narrow focus on measuring rates of social mobility to a broader identification of the determi- nants of individual status attainment. Blau & Duncan built on Sorokin’s classic insight that schools “sort and sieve” students for upward social mobility, but that this function varies— in a manner Sorokin characterized as “trend- less fluctuation”—from society to society, as well as across historical time. Blau & Duncan demonstrated that for the cohort they exam- ined in the United States, occupational desti- nations were strongly associated with educa- tional attainment but that this attainment itself was greatly, though not entirely, determined by family background. Subsequent research has repeatedly demonstrated that socioeconomic background predicts college entrance and com- pletion, holding other factors constant (e.g., Jencks 1972, Karen 2002, Roksa et al. 2007).
Blau & Duncan’s colleagues at the Uni- versity of Wisconsin (e.g., Sewell et al. 1969) extended this explanatory model to identify the influence of parents, teachers, and sig- nificant peers on young people’s life expecta- tions and aspirations, factors that were recog- nized as mediating the relationship between social background and educational attainment. This work focused on schooling in general and college attainment in particular (Sewell & Shah 1968). Such scholarship has repeatedly demonstrated the centrality of social origins on higher education attainment (Featherman & Hauser 1978, Grodsky 2007, Jencks 1972), confirming Weber’s and Sorokin’s analytical
www.annualreviews.org • Advances in the Sociology of Higher Education 129
A nn
u. R
ev . S
oc io
l. 2
00 8.
34 :1
27 -1
51 . D
ow nl
oa de
d fr
om w
w w
.a nn
ua lr
ev ie
w s.
or g
A cc
es s
pr ov
id ed
b y
S an
J os
e S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
it y
on 0
6/ 02
/2 1.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
ANRV348-SO34-07 ARI 7 June 2008 16:31
propositions about the capacity of schooling to facilitate social mobility, as well those that emphasize the capacity of schooling to re- produce patterns of class privilege and status- group exclusion across generations (Bourdieu 1973; Bourdieu & Passeron 1977; Collins 1971, 1979).
The role of social background in predict- ing college admission has generated an en- during discussion about the fairness of college admissions. Various authors have documented discrimination in elite college admissions (Karabel 1984; Karabel 2005; Karen 1991, 2002; Zweigenhaft 1993). Debate exists over whether college admissions became more mer- itocratic over the course of the twentieth cen- tury (Baltzell 1958, Soares 2007, Synnott 1979, Wechsler 1977) and about whether college ad- missions in the United States are more or less meritocratic than in other countries (LeTendre et al. 2006).
Sociologists at Wisconsin also methodolog- ically extended the status-attainment tradition by reconceiving the relationship between social background and educational attainment as in- volving a series of transitions, whereby individ- uals face a sequence of options about whether and how to complete a certain level of schooling and move on to subsequent levels (Mare 1980). Research based on these transition models gen- erally has shown diminishing effects of social background with the higher the level of educa- tional transition attempted (Dougherty 1994, Shavit & Blossfield 1993).
More recent research has extended these models by explicitly building in assumptions of an individual rational actor, whose choices in schooling are often multidimensional and are affected by both the perceived relative eco- nomic benefits of further education as well as the likelihood, at a given level of ability, that one would be successful at completing the next attempted course of study (Breen & Goldthorpe 1997, Gabay-Egozi et al. 2007, Morgan 2005). Although students now enter, move through, and leave college in a wide va- riety of ways ( Jacobs & King 2002, DeLuca & Bozick 2005, Goldrick-Rab 2006), transition
models have provided a parsimonious frame- work with which to identify inequalities in the allocation of formal schooling. A focus on tran- sitions also has stimulated policy research on how institutional articulation mechanisms can be enhanced (Roksa 2007) and how schools can better serve individuals who are not success- ful in attaining what Rosenbaum (2001) has fa- mously called the “college for all” ideal in the United States.
Until recently, status attainment scholars did not find that they needed a separate set of theoretical or methodological tools to concep- tualize transitions into and out of higher educa- tion; their primary goal was to identify factors associated with achieving more years of school- ing, and they had the tools for that job. How- ever, increasing mass participation in higher ed- ucation since World War II has complicated the task of stratification scholars. The mean- ing of “years of schooling” has become ever more variable in the face of the myriad ways to participate in postsecondary education. Even among four-year institutions, widened diversi- fication increasingly undermines the analytical coherence of the meaning of a bachelor’s degree (Bastedo & Gumport 2004).
Diversification of the higher education sec- tor has led concurrently to research designed to consider whether variation in college experi- ence across different kinds of institutions has expanded variation in the attainment of out- comes we traditionally assume a college degree to confer: an entry-level professional job, ad- mission to a graduate program, and symbolic passage across the threshold into the upper mid- dle class (see Gerber & Cheung 2008 in this volume for a review of this research). For exam- ple, community college degrees have benefits relative to high school diplomas but, perhaps not surprisingly, lower labor market returns than four-year degrees (Arum & Hout 1998, Dougherty 1994, Grubb 2002, Kane & Rouse 1995). Differences among four-year colleges such as admissions selectivity, however, have only relatively small effects on adult earn- ings relative to attending other four-year col- leges (Astin 1993, Brewer & Ehrenberg 1996,
130 Stevens · Armstrong · Arum
A nn
u. R
ev . S
oc io
l. 2
00 8.
34 :1
27 -1
51 . D
ow nl
oa de
d fr
om w
w w
.a nn
ua lr
ev ie
w s.
or g
A cc
es s
pr ov
id ed
b y
S an
J os
e S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
it y
on 0
6/ 02
/2 1.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
ANRV348-SO34-07 ARI 7 June 2008 16:31
Dale & Krueger 2002, Pascarella & Teren- zini 2005). Although evidence for indepen- dent effects for variation in college characteris- tics on subsequent labor market outcomes has been found by several scholars (Behrman et al. 1996, Brewer et al. 1999, Black & Smith 2006), consideration of the larger body of empirical findings in this area encourages “skepticism regarding causal effects” (Gerber & Cheung 2008). The notable exception occurs at the very most selective, elite U.S. colleges (Alwin 1974, Karabel 2005, Useem & Karabel 1986), which serve a demonstrable mobility function for non- white students (Bowen & Bok 1998, Fischer & Massey 2006, Hout 1988, Alon & Tienda 2007, Small & Winship 2007). In the most general terms, however, completion of any four-year degree is likely a watershed event in individ- ual biographies; Hout (1988), for example, has argued that once individuals have attained four- year diplomas, social background has only neg- ligible additional effects on occupational posi- tion.
Stratification researchers have also fo- cused on the association between college attainment and marital outcomes. Schwartz & Mare (2005) found that college graduates are increasingly likely to marry each other, leading to a widening class divide between well-educated and well-compensated couples and all married and unmarried others. This “educational assortative mating” (Mare 1991) may be contributing to growing social inequal- ity in American society as a whole. DiPrete & Buchmann (2006) demonstrated that ad- vantage in marriage markets is a key benefit, and perhaps even an incentive, for increasing college completion rates for women (see also Buchmann & DiPrete 2006, Mare 1991).
Higher education may contribute to educa- tional homogamy in both direct and indirect ways. Colleges may provide sexual and marital marketplaces—contexts in which to forge con- nections that culminate in marriage (Laumann et al. 2004). But a later age of marriage— particularly among the most privileged sectors of the population—likely reduces the role of colleges as literal marital marketplaces. Less
directly, individuals may meet dating partners through friendship networks formed in college; colleges may host alumni functions (particularly in large urban areas) that allow graduates to meet each other; and, of course, a college degree channels individuals into educational or pro- fessional venues (e.g., graduate or professional school) where they meet other college gradu- ates. The college degree may also serve a sig- naling function; college graduates may screen potential marriage partners for those with simi- lar credentials. College may additionally impart shared experiences, tastes, and dispositions that attract individuals with similar credentials. The evidence strongly suggests that one or more of these processes is in play: College grad- uates tend not only to marry other college graduates but, more specifically, those who at- tended schools of the same type. Arum et al. (2008) found that one-third of college graduates who married or cohabitated with an individual possessing similar levels of educational attain- ment did so with someone who attended col- leges with identical institutional characteristics in terms of selectivity, prestige, and per student expenditures.
INCUBATOR: INVESTIGATING THE EXPERIENTIAL CORE OF COLLEGE LIFE
Stratification scholars have shown that higher education is associated not only with occupa- tional attainment and marital outcomes, but also with other outcomes of interest, for exam- ple health, happiness, sociopolitical attitudes, civic participation, cosmopolitanism, cultural taste, and social capital (Bowen & Bok 1998, Hunter & Bowman 1996, Kingston et al. 2003). However they have attended less to how the process of moving through college contributes to these outcomes. Some of the most insight- ful sociological investigations of college life are more than 30 years old (Becker et al. 1968, Clark & Trow 1966, Waller 1937). In recent years, the study of what we call the experien- tial core of college life—the space between the elaborately studied moments of college entry
www.annualreviews.org • Advances in the Sociology of Higher Education 131
A nn
u. R
ev . S
oc io
l. 2
00 8.
34 :1
27 -1
51 . D
ow nl
oa de
d fr
om w
w w
.a nn
ua lr
ev ie
w s.
or g
A cc
es s
pr ov
id ed
b y
S an
J os
e S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
it y
on 0
6/ 02
/2 1.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
ANRV348-SO34-07 ARI 7 June 2008 16:31
and exit—has been left largely to the field of education and to a handful of anthropolo- gists and historians (Boyer 1987, Holland & Eisenhart 1990, Horowitz 1987, Kuh 1997, Light 2004, Moffatt 1989, Nathan 2005, Pascarella & Terenzini 2005). There are a few exceptions to this general neglect of college ex- perience, notably a growing body of research on how members of racial minority groups move through college (Fischer & Massey 2006, Massey et al. 2003, Torres & Charles 2004). In general, though, sociologists have attended much more carefully to the lived experiences of students in elementary and secondary schools than they have to those in college. This is a significant oversight, leaving us with an incom- plete understanding of just how college atten- dance impacts so many arenas of life.
Colleges and universities are quintessen- tially social places, shaping the number, quality, and type of social ties that particular individu- als and groups enjoy. We know that the num- ber and kind of ties students build while in col- lege are associated with patterns of academic achievement and degree completion (Aleman 1997, Tinto 1987, Winston & Zimmerman 2004). These ties may have myriad lifelong con- sequences, as people often find jobs, marriage partners, medical care, homes, and schools for their children through people they know (Arum et al. 2008, DiMaggio & Louch 1998, Lareau 2003, Royster 2003). Classic studies of U.S. higher education suggest that colleges and uni- versities, especially elite ones, are important sites for the coalescence of privileged identi- ties, group boundaries, and social networks— in a word, incubators for young adults and the relationships that solidify and divide them into groups (Baltzell 1958, Hall 1992, Wechsler 1977). The effect of college attendance on net- work formation may partially explain how so- cial class comes to be “positively related” to the “size, complexity, and diversity of networks” and negatively related to network “density and average tie strength” (DiMaggio 1987). Al- though research has indicated the career ben- efits of networks formed in college (Buerkle & Guseva 2002, Granovetter 1974, Useem &
Karabel 1986), this strain of scholarship is still in its infancy. Further research might also exam- ine the ways social relations acquired through college attendance structure access to marriage partners and other social goods. Higher educa- tion may not simply shape the social ties of indi- viduals; it may also reconfigure entire networks.
Research has demonstrated that social and cultural capital influence whether students at- tend college, the kinds of institutions they attend, and whether they stay to complete their degrees (Carr & Kefalas 2004, DiMaggio 1982a, DiMaggio & Mohr 1987, Kaufman & Gabler 2004, Kim & Schneider 2005, Lareau 2007). Higher education may offer contexts for the development of cultural capital in ways that are useful for establishing an upper-middle- class life. Bourdieu (1984) viewed social class as constituted not only by occupation, income, and wealth but also by cultural dispositions and styles of embodiment (see also Lamont 1992). Although Bourdieu argued that most cultural capital is acquired at an early age in the context of the family, scholars also have demonstrated that cultural dispositions con- tinue to evolve throughout the life course (Erickson 1996). Scholarship on elite colleges and boarding schools posits that learning to embody privilege—through physique, dress, speech, manners, and style—is an important as- pect of college learning (Cookson & Persell 1985, Zweigenhaft 1993). Stevens (2007) ar- gues that the athletic activities that are so per- vasive on elite U.S. campuses help produce the fit, healthy, attractive bodies that facilitate their owners’ movement though privileged circles during and after college. Social and cultural capital are, of course, intertwined, as “wide- ranging networks require broad repertoires of taste” (DiMaggio 1987).
Ethnographic research indicates that impor- tant networks and distinctive cultural styles are cultivated among students on the social side of college life. Particularly at residential col- leges, students devote considerable attention to friendships, partying, scouting for sexual and romantic partners, competing for popularity, practicing sports, and either participating in or
132 Stevens · Armstrong · Arum
A nn
u. R
ev . S
oc io
l. 2
00 8.
34 :1
27 -1
51 . D
ow nl
oa de
d fr
om w
w w
.a nn
ua lr
ev ie
w s.
or g
A cc
es s
pr ov
id ed
b y
S an
J os
e S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
it y
on 0
6/ 02
/2 1.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
ANRV348-SO34-07 ARI 7 June 2008 16:31
observing athletic competitions (Moffatt 1989, Nathan 2005). Many of these activities are ex- plicitly social, oriented around forging, main- taining, and displaying bonds with peers. The popularity of collegiate networking websites such as Facebook suggests that students seek network ties as ends in themselves.
Bourdieu (1996) argued that most social sorting occurs prior to college enrollment, as “students generally tend to choose the insti- tution . . . that requires and inculcates the (aes- thetic, ethical, and political) dispositions most similar to those inculcated by their family.” We suggest, however, that social sorting continues throughout the undergraduate years in the con- text of hierarchically structured student cul- tures. Although little contemporary sociolog- ical research on college peer cultures exists, we suspect that intramural hierarchies may resem- ble high school status systems in terms of both classification schemata and dynamics (Colemen 1961, Milner 2004). New research in this area might draw insights from an extensive body of work on the peer cultures of children and ado- lescents (e.g., Adler et al. 1992, Corsaro 1997, Eder et al. 1995) and refer back to an earlier tra- dition of sociological research on college peer cultures (e.g., Clark & Trow 1966, Larson & Leslie 1968, Reiss 1965, Scott 1965, Waller 1937).
Fraternity and sorority recruitment is per- haps the most formalized and explicit version of social evaluation and exclusion on campuses— and we note that African Americans have been especially deft at using Greek letter societies as mechanisms of social distinction (Brown et al. 2005)—but they are by no means the only such processes. Scholars amply have documented so- cial exclusion on campus along the lines of race and class (Allen et al. 1991; Aries & Seider 2005; Chang et al. 2004; Frank et al. 1994; Granfield 1991; Hurtado et al. 1999; Stuber 2006a,b; Torres & Charles 2004; Walpole 2003). Economic, social, cultural, and even physical capital may influence whether students gain access to the most desirable networks when in college. Having the “right” clothes, body, hy- giene practices, hair style, accent, cell phone,
and musical tastes can matter (Armstrong et al. 2006, Bergerson 2007, Hamilton 2007, Milner 2004). Acquiring appropriate cultural accoutrements requires time and money, both of which are often in short supply among first- generation college students. Stuber (2006a) found that upper-middle-class students tend to arrive at college with an orientation to sociality: They have been “primed” (Corsaro & Molinari 2000) by parents and friends to be as “outgo- ing” as possible and have learned techniques for “meeting people.” By contrast, students from less affluent families are less comfortable with the dominant campus style of sociability. Bergerson (2007) found that first-generation students viewed the socializing promoted by campus culture to be a distraction from what they understood to be the main purpose of college—academics. Such cultural norms and expectations tend to produce homophilic social networks (McPherson et al. 2001).
This Bourdieuian emphasis on the ways in which college peer cultures may reproduce so- cial inequalities stands in sharp contrast to how the field of higher education approaches stu- dent experience. Education scholars have fo- cused on the role that social integration plays in college persistence. Drawing on Durkheim’s notions of social solidarity, Tinto (1987, 1988) argued that those who become socially and aca- demically integrated into the college commu- nity are more likely to stay in school. A vast body of research applying, testing, extending, and challenging Tinto’s theory has developed (e.g., Astin 1993, Braxton et al. 1997, Christie & Dinham 1991). Tinto’s model has been criti- cized, particularly by those who study minority student experience, as suggesting that lack of integration stems from failure on the part of the person or group that does not become in- tegrated, rather than with the college culture into which the person is expected to integrate (Hurtado & Carter 1997, Tierney 1992). De- spite these criticisms, Tinto’s theory and oth- ers focusing on “involvement” (Pascarella 1985, Pascarella & Terenzini 2005) continue to domi- nate how the field of higher education conceives of college life.
www.annualreviews.org • Advances in the Sociology of Higher Education 133
A nn
u. R
ev . S
oc io
l. 2
00 8.
34 :1
27 -1
51 . D
ow nl
oa de
d fr
om w
w w
.a nn
ua lr
ev ie
w s.
or g
A cc
es s
pr ov
id ed
b y
S an
J os
e S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
it y
on 0
6/ 02
/2 1.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
ANRV348-SO34-07 ARI 7 June 2008 16:31
New sociological research on college expe- riences is underway. Well-crafted longitudinal studies of cohorts of students, such as the one by Massey and his colleagues of black, white, Asian, and Latino students moving through elite schools, provide opportunities to better understand how life at the experiential core of college implicates larger patterns of social strat- ification (Massey et al. 2003). Ethnographic re- search in progress promises to illuminate the microlevel interactional processes that sum to various kinds of college biographies (Armstrong 2007, Chambliss 2003–2004). Finally, recent advances in data collection techniques, mathe- matical modeling, and computational technol- ogy offer rich possibilities for scholars to map precisely the dynamics of undergraduate so- cial networks. Provocative research by Carley (1985) on the relationship between network structure and decision making among dormi- tory residents at MIT and by Kossinets & Watts (2006) on the organization of email correspon- dence at Columbia University provides starting points for further inquiries into network dy- namics at the experiential core of college.
TEMPLE: HIGHER EDUCATION AND THE LEGITIMATION OF KNOWLEDGE
Although the relationship between higher edu- cation and social inequality has been the pri- mary focus of research in the field in recent decades, the role of the university in the le- gitimation of knowledge has long been of so- ciological interest as well. For Talcott Parsons, the primary purpose of higher education was to preserve, promote, and inculcate the modern “cognitive complex,” a rational, universalistic mode of thinking (Parsons & Platt 1973). The “fiduciary” role of the university in guarding the modern cognitive complex is what, for Parsons, explains its prestige in contemporary societies. It also is why people destined for leadership roles in government and the professions are expected or required to undergo years of in- culcation into this cognitive complex as under- graduates. Although critics found the Parsonian
conception static and immune to falsification, they also praised the way it suggested deep linkages between higher education and the broader society (Gusfield 1974). A few years later, Collins (1979) reiterated the definitively Weberian insight that education also is terrain on which different social groups compete for power and recognition. Collins pointed out that educational credentials serve as primary mark- ers of status in modern societies, provoking conflicts over control of the organizational in- frastructure and curricular content of credential conferral (Collins 1979).
While Collins and others were developing this critical approach to the linkages between the academy and the politics of knowledge, par- ticularly among occupational groups (Abbott 1988, Freidson 1986, Larson 1977), John Meyer and his colleagues at Stanford University theorized the connections between the univer- sity and the modern nation-state. For the Stan- ford school, formal secular education is an es- sential component of nation-building, through which the state assumes jurisdiction over the production of competent citizens and workers (Boli et al. 1985, Ramirez 2002, Ramirez & Boli 1987). This has been a long-term historical pro- cess, spearheaded by the university, which de- veloped in early modern Europe as a hybrid in- stitutional space between church bureaucracies and emerging secular states (Ruegg 2004).
In this approach formal education not only certifies social capacities, it produces a distinc- tive kind of social actor: the legally and norma- tively autonomous, rights-bearing, rationally cognizant citizen of Enlightenment modernity. Because this production process entails the for- mal organization of knowledge into curricu- lum, it also defines what counts as legitimate knowledge (Meyer 1977). Higher education en- joys pride of place in this production appara- tus because it produces and certifies the best and brightest citizens and the most complex and rarefied knowledge. As the organizational instantiation of intellectual progress, the uni- versity is the secular temple of modern soci- eties (Meyer et al. 1994, 2007; Schofer & Meyer 2005).
134 Stevens · Armstrong · Arum
A nn
u. R
ev . S
oc io
l. 2
00 8.
34 :1
27 -1
51 . D
ow nl
oa de
d fr
om w
w w
.a nn
ua lr
ev ie
w s.
or g
A cc
es s
pr ov
id ed
b y
S an
J os
e S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
it y
on 0
6/ 02
/2 1.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
ANRV348-SO34-07 ARI 7 June 2008 16:31
The traditions of scholarship that we here describe with the metaphors of sieve, incubator, and temple only rarely have been made mutu- ally informative, despite the shared organiza- tional housing of the empirical phenomena they investigate. We find it compelling, for example, that the status of universities and their students is reciprocally generated. In the United States, the academic quality of schools is assessed, in part, on their admissions selectivity and admit- ted students’ prior academic performance—for example, class rank and SAT scores (Geiger 2002, Stevens 2007, Wechsler 1977; see Brint et al. 2006 for an alternative analysis of orga- nizational status based on administrative ca- reer trajectories). Stinchcombe (1990) once theorized that student matriculation decisions are based on the assumption of a connec- tion between the amount and quality of fac- ulty research and the prestige of an institu- tion’s credential. Social scientists only rarely have systematically assessed the closeness of fit between faculty productivity and orga- nizational prestige. Network research shows that perceptions of institutional and individ- ual quality overlap in faculty hiring deci- sions in sociology departments (Burris 2004). Economists have shown that administrators at elite schools make decisions about how to set tuition and spend money on the premise that institutional clients perceive a correlation between faculty productivity, admissions se- lectivity, and the value of particular degrees (Clotfelter 1996, Ehrenberg 2000). The rise of standardized ranking schemes, such as those produced by U.S. News and World Report, re- inforces these perceptions (Espeland & Sauder 2007). The above research notwithstanding, so- cial scientists have only begun to explore the empirical relationships between the stratifica- tion, knowledge production, and legitimation functions of higher education.
Ironically, our reluctance to consider the links between these different aspects of the university directly mirrors organizational so- ciology’s famous insights about loose cou- pling between disparate components of com- plex organizations—insights that themselves
grew out of the study of schools (Meyer & Rowan 1977, 1978; Weick 1976). Because col- leges and universities have so many different functions and so many different outside con- stituents (e.g., parents, professional and phil- anthropic organizations, alumni, trustees, state funding agencies, legislatures, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association), loose coupling is often the most reasonable or even the only possible organizational response. Sociologists have taken this idea a long way—so far, perhaps, that we have lost sight of a crucial fact: In mod- ern societies, much of the work of class stratifi- cation, knowledge production, and legitimation is relegated to the same organizations, univer- sities. Social scientists generally have been less appreciative of this fact than they should be.
As Max Weber pointed out long ago, the rationalization of education and training tends to make secular knowledge a primary substan- tive value under modernity (Gerth & Mills 1946). Meyer and colleagues’ (1994) contribu- tion to this insight has been to combine it with a Durkheimian conception of formal education as a moral enterprise. Formal secular education is the religion of modernity, the university is its temple, and one of its primary consequences is to legitimate the allocation of scarce and privileged social positions (i.e., socioeconomic stratification). The task of capturing the simul- taneity of these different features of higher ed- ucation systems is well served, we believe, by an additional metaphor.
HUB: HIGHER EDUCATION AND THE STRUCTURATION OF MODERN SOCIETIES
We propose that higher education is a hub con- necting some of the most prominent institu- tional sectors of modern societies: the labor market and the larger economy, the profes- sions and the sciences, the philanthropic sector, the family, and the nation-state. This structural arrangement is historically specific and cross- nationally variable, but in certain times and places, higher education systems are key sites where institutions intersect. We propose that
www.annualreviews.org • Advances in the Sociology of Higher Education 135
A nn
u. R
ev . S
oc io
l. 2
00 8.
34 :1
27 -1
51 . D
ow nl
oa de
d fr
om w
w w
.a nn
ua lr
ev ie
w s.
or g
A cc
es s
pr ov
id ed
b y
S an
J os
e S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
it y
on 0
6/ 02
/2 1.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
ANRV348-SO34-07 ARI 7 June 2008 16:31
conceiving of higher education systems (even perhaps all formal schooling systems) as hubs is an apt extension of the three sociological tra- ditions summarized above and opens up large new terrain for empirical inquiry.
The notion of the modern university as a hub connecting multiple institutional domains was implicit in the benchmark analysis of U.S. higher education by Jencks & Riesman (1968). The university was the primary organizational catalyst of Jencks & Riesman’s “academic rev- olution,” which they defined succinctly as “the rise to power of the academic profession (xiii).” By the second half of the twentieth century, academics had accrued considerable influence over American life in at least three ways: First, the expanded higher education sector that em- ployed them became the nation’s official portal to middle-class prosperity; second, academics’ formal authority over the terms and content of academic credentials grew with the increas- ing number of professional certifications; third, academics’ amassing esoteric knowledge and their claims to scholarly and scientific objectiv- ity facilitated their access to leadership and ad- visory positions across a wide spectrum of social institutions.
The dramatic expansion of the instructional and research capacities of U.S. higher educa- tion after World War II through the 1970s provided much of the infrastructure for an in- creasingly technocratic society, in which cov- eted occupational positions and status honor were distributed largely on the basis of postsec- ondary schooling and in which the university became the official locus of knowledge produc- tion. Over the course of 50 years and through the massive financial largesse of state and fed- eral governments, U.S. universities became vir- tually unavoidable passageways into the upper middle class and central nodes in the profes- sional networks of literally all fields of expert knowledge and practice.
This academic revolution was funded by huge government investment, and it was ac- complished with virtually no popular dis- sent. Standing explanations for these remark- able facts include the overall massification of
U.S. industry and society after the Civil War and an accompanying imperative to rational- ize the national stratification system ( Jencks & Riesman 1968); a national attempt to both man- age and reward legions of World War II vet- erans (Mettler 2005); pervasive anxieties about U.S. scientific supremacy during the Cold War (Kleinman 1995, Lowen 1997); and an offi- cial government policy of expanded access to higher education as a mechanism of social mo- bility (Brint & Karabel 1989, Cohen 2003, Dougherty 1994, Rosenbaum 2001, Stevens 2007). Still, the question of just how higher ed- ucation was able to enjoy its radical mid-century expansion, unsullied by political controversy, remains something of a historical puzzle (see also Calhoun 2000, Walters 2000).
We suspect that part of the answer is that colleges and universities historically have been institutions that serve more privileged segments of society. For all the populist rhetoric that her- alded its progress, the academic revolution was a velvet one. Corporate and civic leaders viewed the expansion of higher education as a use- ful means of seeding economic development, rationalizing labor markets, absorbing excess workers during economic recessions, expand- ing middle-class consumer markets, and even tempering race relations (Bowen et al. 2005, Cohen 2003, Kerr 2001). The virtual absence of elite opposition to the massive social engi- neering the academic revolution entailed sug- gests that powerful parties in government and business saw the aggrandizement of the uni- versity as politically and perhaps even finan- cially advantageous. Nevertheless, the state- ments in this paragraph are, at best, hypotheses; to our knowledge this period of U.S. higher education history remains without a political sociology.
Useful precursors to such scholarship are DiMaggio’s (1982b,c) influential articles on the creation of philanthropic arts organizations in late-nineteenth-century America. In these pa- pers, DiMaggio explains that Anglo-Protestant Boston elites built cultural institutions such as the Museum of Fine Arts and the Boston Symphony Orchestra in order to demonstrate
136 Stevens · Armstrong · Arum
A nn
u. R
ev . S
oc io
l. 2
00 8.
34 :1
27 -1
51 . D
ow nl
oa de
d fr
om w
w w
.a nn
ua lr
ev ie
w s.
or g
A cc
es s
pr ov
id ed
b y
S an
J os
e S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
it y
on 0
6/ 02
/2 1.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
ANRV348-SO34-07 ARI 7 June 2008 16:31
their cultural sophistication in the eyes of Europe, to pursue the cultural primacy of their region in the young United States, and to en- sure the legitimacy of their privilege in their own Massachusetts backyards. A definitive his- tory suggests similar incentives for Brahmin pa- tronage of Harvard College (Story 1980). The basic insight of this work—that elites use phil- anthropic organizations to create privileged so- cial networks and ensure their legitimacy (see also Hall 1992)—is portable to U.S. higher ed- ucation generally. Historical scholarship makes clear that early Americans patronized colleges and universities, both public and private, partly to aggrandize the cultural stature of particu- lar cities and regions, partly to seed regional economies, and partly to enable elite social net- works to coalesce (Baltzell 1958, Story 1980, Thelin 2004, Wechsler 1977). The vast, varied, and extraordinarily competitive organizational ecology of U.S. higher education is the product of these efforts.
Even while the emergence of the modern higher education system in the mid-twentieth century United States awaits its political sociol- ogy, one fact is tantalizingly certain: The mod- ern university commingles a wide array of elites. Privileged families and those who wish some- day to be counted among them send their chil- dren to the most selective (and often the more costly) undergraduate programs to which they are afforded access. Professional schools of law, medicine, engineering, business, education, art, and communications train future occupational leaders and produce the esoteric knowledge es- sential to any professionalization project. In the social sciences and the humanities, faculty ap- pointments at top universities are the ultimate status markers. Accomplished people in gov- ernment, the arts, and business are pleased to receive university speaking engagements and honorary degrees. U.S. presidents often unveil new initiatives in speeches to college students. Wealthy patrons donate millions to university advancement projects and lend their names to buildings and entire schools. That higher ed- ucation is a meeting ground for so many dif- ferent kinds of elites is, we believe, good prima
facie evidence for the appropriateness of our hub metaphor.
Appraised as a hub linking disparate institu- tional systems, higher education is a paradox. As a mechanism for the production of valuable credentials and official knowledge, it is simulta- neously a powerful and a fragile social institu- tion. On the one hand, higher education con- nects and reciprocally blesses various forms of privilege. Elite groups (e.g., high-status fami- lies, professions, politicians, scientists, intellec- tuals) and those aspiring to be a part of them use higher education to certify their legitimacy. This is the essence of Collins’ (1979) creden- tial society. On the other hand, the university is fragile in at least three ways. First, its status as an official arbiter of status and knowledge makes it the object of contestation among a wide array of parties about the terms of admission. Hence, for example, the U.S. civil rights movements of the late twentieth century made college access a pri- mary site of political contention. The results of this conflict included a nationally peculiar and hotly disputed system of race-preferential ad- missions and a lofty discourse about the virtue of “diversity” among elites generally (Karabel 2005, Karen 1991, Skrentny 2002).
Second, the legitimating power of the uni- versity means that its workers, their depart- ments, and their careers are the objects (and subjects) of political conflict and ideological controversy. In addition to their demands for change in selective college admissions, civil rights activists successfully advocated for the creation of African American, Latin American, and women’s studies courses and entire aca- demic units (Abbott 1999, 2002; Rojas 2007). The politicization of curriculum is not limited to a single historical time period. Earlier in the twentieth century, patron and administrative anxieties about the ideological underpinnings of the social sciences at the brand new Uni- versity of Chicago were quelled by conscien- tiously distinguishing “scientific” departments of sociology and pedagogy from the progres- sive social-reform milieu that had helped give rise to them in the first place (Abbott 1999, Deegan 1988, Westbrook 1992). It may not be
www.annualreviews.org • Advances in the Sociology of Higher Education 137
A nn
u. R
ev . S
oc io
l. 2
00 8.
34 :1
27 -1
51 . D
ow nl
oa de
d fr
om w
w w
.a nn
ua lr
ev ie
w s.
or g
A cc
es s
pr ov
id ed
b y
S an
J os
e S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
it y
on 0
6/ 02
/2 1.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
ANRV348-SO34-07 ARI 7 June 2008 16:31
too much to say that political context always is implicated in the organization of academic knowledge, both in the structuration of fields of inquiry and in the risks scholars take when navi- gating careers through them. American philos- ophy’s wholesale migration toward ostensibly apolitical analytic approaches during the Cold War (McCumber 2001), and Richard Rorty’s celebrated move in the opposite direction in the middle of his career, are provocative empir- ical examples (for a critical analysis, see Gross 2008).
A third aspect of the university’s fragility is its constitutional reliance on patronage as a pri- mary source of revenue. We use the term con- stitutional decidedly here. An essential feature of the university is its formal autonomy from the other institutional hierarchies it helps to le- gitimate. With its modernist commitment to the idea of knowledge as a transcendent, sub- stantive value and its ability to bless the legit- imacy of multiple institutional hierarchies, the university acts in the manner of a religious in- stitution. Like any religious concern, it needs resources to survive, but it tends to carry out re- sourceful transactions with symbolic safeguards for protecting what the university calls sacred. The university is not, or at least not only, a busi- ness, and it often does not feel or behave like one. On this point we depart sharply from ed- ucational economists, who often simplistically model universities as firms (see also Calhoun 2006).
The university’s constitutional reliance on patronage attaches strings to its revenue streams. It can accumulate wealth, but it has to do so with the appropriate rituals and with fealty to the notion of free and disinterested inquiry. If the university were only or even pri- marily a business, it would not have its special power to legitimate hierarchies beyond its own institutional borders. The elaborate symbolism that marks so many movements of people and resources into and out of the university is in- dicative of its distinctive, sacred character. It is not by accident that there is a special word— tuition—for payments made in exchange for university instruction; that other financial con-
tributions to the university are called gifts or grants; that faculty members are officially ap- pointed, not hired, to their positions; and that diplomas are conferred on special feast days in- volving elaborately scripted processions, cos- tumes, documents, and speech acts.
However, it appears that the work of distin- guishing what the university calls sacred from more profane dimensions of organizational sur- vival has become increasingly difficult in recent years: when the cost of educating students has escalated much faster than overall inflation rates (Ehrenberg 2000); when the most prestigious forms of knowledge, specifically in the physi- cal and life sciences, have extraordinarily high production costs; and when universities them- selves, as well as individual faculty, are aggres- sively pursuing patent protection for research innovations (Owen-Smith 2003, 2005; Powell et al. 2007). The problem has been abetted by shrinking government subsidies for higher ed- ucation and increasing reliance on liberal credit markets that are leaving large numbers of grad- uates heavily indebted (Long & Reily 2007). As Gumport and her colleagues have ably ex- plained, the revenue streams that ushered in the academic revolution have changed, and uni- versities have become increasingly dependent on alternative sources of revenue (Brint 2005, Gumport 2002, Gumport & Pusser 1999).
An important domain of innovation in re- sponse to this shifting environment is the life sciences, where universities eagerly seek to cap- italize on the intellectual property produced under their auspices. Many parties (univer- sity administrators, faculty scientists, large cor- porations, venture capitalists) are invested in this realm of inquiry, and the entire sector is quite dynamic. Accumulating scholarship sug- gests that the implications of this dynamism for the form and future of higher education gen- erally are large (Colyvas & Powell 2006, 2007; Owen-Smith 2003, 2005; Powell et al. 2005). Blurred boundaries between the academic and corporate sectors in the sciences have dramati- cally increased the wealth and authority of these academic units relative to the social sciences and the humanities (Kerr 2001, Readings 1996).
138 Stevens · Armstrong · Arum
A nn
u. R
ev . S
oc io
l. 2
00 8.
34 :1
27 -1
51 . D
ow nl
oa de
d fr
om w
w w
.a nn
ua lr
ev ie
w s.
or g
A cc
es s
pr ov
id ed
b y
S an
J os
e S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
it y
on 0
6/ 02
/2 1.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
ANRV348-SO34-07 ARI 7 June 2008 16:31
There is little question that in terms of dol- lars, physical plants, government endorsement, and popular sentiment, the physical and nat- ural sciences dominate the contemporary aca- demic world. The steady historical decline of the humanities (Frank & Gabler 2006) has likely only been exacerbated by the new forms of commercial profitability in other sectors of the university.
Widening intramural resource divides in- vite fascinating questions for organizational and cultural sociologists and for sociologists of knowledge. To wit: how, and to what degree, has the increasing wealth of the sciences been accompanied by increasing administrative in- fluence? Have what Kerr (2001) perceptively called the “unhappy humanities” found endur- ing pockets of administrative authority despite their loss of students to other disciplines? Do the humanities embody a form of organiza- tional cultural capital that retains a distinctive value in academic prestige systems? Why do we still have classics departments?
CROSS-NATIONAL VARIATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEMS
Sociologists have shown that the multi- purpose, research-and-teaching university form—Clark Kerr’s (2001) “multiversity”— developed in the United States after World War II and quickly became the definitive or- ganizational model for universities worldwide (Schofer & Meyer 2005). The boundaries and content of academic disciplines developed in the West have similarly diffused (Frank & Gabler 2006). Yet important questions remain about the extent to which higher education should be appraised as a coherent global phenomenon or a nationally variable one.
Shavit and his colleagues (2007) consider the consequences of the expansion, differen- tiation, and privatization of higher education systems for relative inequality of access to post- secondary schooling. This work follows in the tradition of the “fourth generation” of compar- ative social stratification research—i.e., schol-
arship focused on the extent to which organi- zational variation across countries affects both intergenerational mobility and associations be- tween social class and educational attainment (see Treiman & Ganzeboom 2000). Working with stratification researchers from 15 differ- ent countries, Arum and his colleagues (2007) found that, in general, as higher education ex- pands it also tends to diversify. Contrary to ex- pectations, however, neither diversification nor privatization results in greater inequality of ac- cess. Instead, expansion increases opportunities for persons from all social backgrounds, and in some cases (where most advantaged groups al- ready have nearly universal access to higher ed- ucation), opportunities increase more for per- sons from disadvantaged origins. For exam- ple, during the late twentieth century women’s opportunities increased faster than men’s, and in most countries, women now enter higher education at higher rates than men (see also Buchmann et al. 2008).
Despite their somewhat counterintuitive finding that organizational differences in higher education systems do not contribute much to overall inequality, the team assembled by Shavit and his colleagues (2007) nevertheless docu- ments dazzling variation in how different coun- tries assemble postsecondary schooling. For ex- ample, in the United States higher education is a complex mix of public and private organizations and funding streams, but Western European nations and Canada have planned higher educa- tion regimes that are funded primarily through direct government subsidies. The U.S. system is characterized by an exceptionally steep interor- ganizational status hierarchy, a peculiarity that is especially clear in comparison with neighbor- ing Canada, where access to higher education has been comparably universalized (Davies & Hammack 2005). Profit-driven entrepreneurial systems are rapidly developing in the former Soviet republics, Southeast Asia, and elsewhere (Shavit et al. 2007).
How ought we to square this organizational variation with the commonalities found cross- nationally? We suspect that the metaphors we introduce here are conducive to addressing this
www.annualreviews.org • Advances in the Sociology of Higher Education 139
A nn
u. R
ev . S
oc io
l. 2
00 8.
34 :1
27 -1
51 . D
ow nl
oa de
d fr
om w
w w
.a nn
ua lr
ev ie
w s.
or g
A cc
es s
pr ov
id ed
b y
S an
J os
e S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
it y
on 0
6/ 02
/2 1.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
ANRV348-SO34-07 ARI 7 June 2008 16:31
puzzle. Our theory is that higher education sys- tems are sieves, incubators, temples, and hubs in all modern societies, but cross-national vari- ation in the structure of these systems is related to other enduring cross-national differences in the character and cultural manifestations of so- cial inequality. Specifying this variation would reveal a fascinating feature of modernity: The expansion of higher education and its conse- quences for stratification are truly global, even while their expressions tend to remain nation- ally peculiar.
Recent scholarship suggests linkages be- tween the structure of higher education systems and national class cultures. Stevens (2007) ar- gues, for example, that the exceptionally popu- lous and competitive organizational ecology of U.S. higher education is both an outcome and a cause of Americans’ enduring ambivalence about class distinction. Because, historically, U.S. elites have been unable to agree fully on the proper relationship between higher educa- tion and class exclusion, they have supported an extraordinarily large number and variety of col- leges and universities. Although American cul- ture has a thin language for talking about social class per se, it maintains an exquisitely elab- orate discourse about college. Upper-middle- class life in America is characterized by end- less discussion of where one attended college and where one’s children are headed. Affluent parents care about not just whether their chil- dren will be admitted to college, but also about which among the prestigious schools will offer their children spots. Testament to the cultural significance of college choices and admissions decisions, many people embellish their car win- dows, homes, and wardrobes with the insignia of their alma maters and of the schools their offspring attend.
Unlike anywhere else in the world, inter- collegiate athletics are a constitutive feature of U.S. higher education’s prestige system. In- tercollegiate sports leagues are “status clubs” (Stevens 2007) that serve as a shorthand for rel- ative organizational status (the paradigmatic ex- ample is, of course, the Ivy League). The ath- letic contests that give this prestige system its
official purpose enjoy millions of fans and gen- erate billions of dollars in ticket and advertising revenues. The human capital essential to this system is produced by the vast organizational infrastructure of youth athletics, which simul- taneously grooms the talented athletes coveted by college and university sports programs, de- fines the rhythms of bourgeois American fam- ily life, and provides inspiring narratives about the possibility of social mobility through ath- letic accomplishment (Lareau 2003, Shulman & Bowen 2001).
Things are different in other societies. Canada maintains a government-funded, cen- trally administered higher education system with a relatively flat interorganizational status hierarchy. Although there is modest variation in the prestige of degrees from different Canadian universities, competition among applicants for seats at particular schools is much less intense than in the United States (Davies & Hammack 2005).
In contrast with the North American sys- tems, French higher education is both cen- trally administered and intensely competitive. In France, the highest-status schools are the grandes écoles, which generally are regarded as having the most elite academic faculties and have the most competitive admissions. Differ- ent écoles confer different kinds of status, which parallel the intended futures of their graduates as technical professionals, government officials, or intellectuals. Beneath the grandes écoles are the more numerous French universités, which have less competitive admissions and which confer degrees of lower prestige. The relatively rigid and explicitly hierarchical character of French higher education parallels the character of the French class system, as one of its most famous sociologists well understood (Bourdieu 1996).
Since about 1980, the British higher educa- tion system has been in transit between a binary, categorical prestige hierarchy—with Oxford and Cambridge enjoying unquestioned preem- inence over all other national universities—to a more complex and finely calibrated status gra- dient in which government financial support is
140 Stevens · Armstrong · Arum
A nn
u. R
ev . S
oc io
l. 2
00 8.
34 :1
27 -1
51 . D
ow nl
oa de
d fr
om w
w w
.a nn
ua lr
ev ie
w s.
or g
A cc
es s
pr ov
id ed
b y
S an
J os
e S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
it y
on 0
6/ 02
/2 1.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
ANRV348-SO34-07 ARI 7 June 2008 16:31
tied to measurable performance on standard- ized metrics of organizational quality. Oxbridge degrees remain marks of social and academic distinction in the UK, but less definitive ones than they were 30 years ago. The transforma- tion of the British university system has been part of an explicit and ongoing government ef- fort whose officially stated purpose has been to render class distinctions more porous through- out British society (Soares 1999).
We believe that the consistent covariation of national higher education systems and class cul- tures is an important area for further research. We here reiterate the overarching sociologi- cal paradox: Even while higher education is similarly implicated in modern stratification regimes globally, quite visible forms of national organizational and cultural distinctiveness re- main. This insight is hardly our own; it re- ceived eloquent expression in Turner’s (1960) classic essay contrasting the sponsored and con- test mobility educational logics in mid-century Britain and America. Yet the remarkable si- multaneity of higher education’s universal dif- fusion and particularistic expression remains largely unexplored by sociologists and provides a starting place for multiple research hypothe- ses in the sociology of culture, organizations, and stratification.
Is there a postnational university? The ques- tion promises to become ever more salient with the continuing functional integration of Euro- pean states and ever larger flows of students and scholars across national borders. Sociologists have long viewed the university as a constitu- tive feature of the nation-state, and the codifi- cation of national culture has been a prominent function of the university since its medieval in- ception (Readings 1996). Despite the ideal of higher education as a cosmopolitan sector, in which people and ideas travel with little re- gard for national borders (Keohane 1993), uni- versities continued to be nationally parochial throughout the twentieth century. With the im- portant exception of the most elite graduate stu- dents and aristocratic progeny, who long have been attracted to U.S. and a few European uni- versities, migration patterns of faculty and stu-
dents have long been constrained by national borders.
This is changing. Students, especially, are becoming more peripatetic. U.S. institutions have remained powerful magnets for students from throughout the world, while for an ever growing number of American undergraduates, some period of study abroad is now de rigueur (Inst. Int. Educ. 2007). This latter phenomenon echoes a longstanding tradition among the American upper classes, in which families sent young people on European tours to acquire cul- tural sophistication (Stevens 2007); today the project is formally managed by colleges and ap- pears be a nontrivial source of tuition revenue and institutional prestige. This is another topic that would reward sociological research.
Finally, we note that the functional inte- gration of national higher education systems in the new Europe, manifest in a series of ac- cords known as the Bologna process, promises to revise the historically enduring relation- ship between universities and national identity (Wachter 2004). How the easy movement of students, tuition, and academic credits across national borders will influence migration pat- terns, institutional prestige hierarchies, and na- tional class cultures remains to be seen.
CONCLUSION
Our review indicates that sociologists of higher education generally have pursued three basic problems: social stratification, social reproduc- tion, and the legitimation of knowledge. We think it is fair to say that stratification has been the field’s main business, conducted largely through quantitative analyses of individual- level data, in which people are presumed to en- ter, move through, and leave higher education with varying degrees of success. This intellec- tual project has been enormously productive not only for the sociology of higher educa- tion but for the discipline as a whole, because it has demonstrated the central role of formal schooling, and the state policies that produce and regulate it, in the hierarchical organization of modern societies. Nevertheless we suspect
www.annualreviews.org • Advances in the Sociology of Higher Education 141
A nn
u. R
ev . S
oc io
l. 2
00 8.
34 :1
27 -1
51 . D
ow nl
oa de
d fr
om w
w w
.a nn
ua lr
ev ie
w s.
or g
A cc
es s
pr ov
id ed
b y
S an
J os
e S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
it y
on 0
6/ 02
/2 1.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
ANRV348-SO34-07 ARI 7 June 2008 16:31
that two core precepts of research in the strati- fication tradition have channeled attention too narrowly.
First, the presumption that higher education does its work on individuals should not lead us to ignore the fact that people experience school- ing as a thick web of relationships. Although individual-level data often make it easy for ana- lysts to conceive of students as singular entities who move through school on individual tra- jectories, students are also nodes in networks that supply them with much of what they need to get through school: money, advice, friend- ship, emotional nurturance, and information. Just how the sociology of education should inte- grate its robust corpus of findings derived from individual-level data with the empirical and the- oretical importance of network approaches is an important scholarly frontier.
Second, the presumption that higher educa- tion is primarily a credentialing system should not limit our consideration of other significant aspects of schooling. The conferral of valuable
credentials may be the master task of colleges and universities, but it is not thereby the only important one. It may be the case, for example, that the work of earning and conferring degrees is the legitimating glue that holds the entire en- terprise of higher education together, the offi- cial business that rationalizes, blesses, and even renders invisible the other myriad functions of universities.
We use the term “functions” cautiously but decidedly. The dense interconnections between universities and families, governments, and cor- porate and philanthropic organizations of all kinds have convinced us that higher education occupies a privileged place in the broader in- stitutional order. Ultimately our guiding im- age of the hub is not merely a rhetorical device but a theory about the sociological significance of universities: They are central to the infras- tructure of modernity, connecting modern so- cieties’ major institutions even while they re- main officially independent and intermittently critical of them.
FUTURE ISSUES
1. Further investigation is needed on the extent to which increasing educational homogamy is contributing to class polarization.
2. Further investigation is needed into the kinds and amounts of social and cultural capital acquired in college; into how the social and cultural capital people possess at the beginning of college conditions acquisition of further capital; and into the dynamics of capital sharing and hoarding within particular student populations.
3. Comparative research is needed on potential variation in the social and cultural capital benefits of college within schools, between schools, and across societies.
4. Research is needed on the empirical links between the certification of knowledge and the certification of persons within higher education systems.
5. A political sociology of the expansion of higher education in the twentieth century is needed. Through what activities has the notion of the university as a sacred institution been produced and protected? By what means and to what extent has this sacredness been challenged?
6. How are we to explain the paradox that the expansion of higher education has parallel consequences for stratification throughout the world, yet the structure of higher educa- tion systems is nationally specific and quite variable?
7. Comparative research is needed on the ways in which national class cultures and higher education systems may be mutually constitutive.
142 Stevens · Armstrong · Arum
A nn
u. R
ev . S
oc io
l. 2
00 8.
34 :1
27 -1
51 . D
ow nl
oa de
d fr
om w
w w
.a nn
ua lr
ev ie
w s.
or g
A cc
es s
pr ov
id ed
b y
S an
J os
e S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
it y
on 0
6/ 02
/2 1.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
ANRV348-SO34-07 ARI 7 June 2008 16:31
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The authors are not aware of any biases that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This effort grew out of the conference, “A New Research Agenda for the Sociology of Higher Education,” which convened at New York University in March 2006 and was supported by a grant from the ASA/NSF Fund for the Advancement of the Discipline. Additional financial support from NYU’s Steinhardt Institute for Higher Education Policy, Department of Sociology, and the Office of the Dean of NYU’s Steinhardt School is also gratefully acknowledged. Randall Collins, Scott Davies, Paul DiMaggio, Neil Fligstein, David Frank, Sara Goldrick-Rab, Neil Gross, Jerry Jacobs, Christopher Jencks, Michèle Lamont, Doug Massey, John Meyer, Jason Owen-Smith, Kim Pereira, Chiqui Ramirez, Evan Schofer, Leanna Stiefel, Florencia Torche, and members of the NYU Education Workshop made valuable comments on earlier iterations of our arguments. Erin Cocke, Kamilah Briscoe, Karly Ford, and Michael Reilly provided excellent administrative and research assistance.
LITERATURE CITED
Abbott A. 1988. The System of Professions: An Essay on the Expert Division of Labor. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Abbott A. 1999. Department and Discipline: Chicago Sociology at 100. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Abbott A. 2001. Chaos of Disciplines. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Abbott A. 2002. The disciplines and the future. See Brint 2002, pp. 205–30 Adler PA, Kless SJ, Adler P. 1992. Socialization to gender roles: popularity among elementary
school boys and girls. Sociol. Educ. 65:169–87 Aleman AMM. 1997. Understanding and investigating female friendship’s educative value. J. High.
Educ. 68:119–59 Allen WR, Epps EG, Haniff NZ. 1991. College in Black and White: African American Students in
Predominantly White and in Historically Black Public Universities. Albany: SUNY Press Alon S, Tienda M. 2007. Diversity, opportunity, and the shifting meritocracy in higher education.
Am. Sociol. Rev. 72:487–511 Alwin DF. 1974. College effects on educational and occupational attainments. Am. Sociol. Rev.
39:210–23 Aries E, Seider M. 2005. The interactive relationship between class identity and the college
experience: the case of lower income students. Qual. Sociol. 28:419–43 Armstrong EA. 2007. College culture and social inequality. Work. Pap., Sociol. Dep., Indiana Univ. Armstrong EA, Hamilton L, Sweeney B. 2006. Sexual assault on campus: a multi-level, integrative
approach to party rape. Soc. Probl. 53:483–99 Aronowitz S. 2000. The Knowledge Factory. Boston: Beacon Arum R, Budig MJ, Roksa J. 2008 . The romance of higher education: college stratification and
mate election. Res. Soc. Stratif. Mobil. In press Arum R, Gamoran A, Shavit Y. 2007. More inclusion than diversion: expansion, differentiation,
and market structure in higher education. See Shavit et al. 2007, pp. 1–35 Arum R, Hout M. 1998. The early returns: transitions from school to work in the United States.
In From School to Work: A Comparative Study of Educational Qualifications and Occupational Destinations, ed. W Müller, Y Shavit, pp. 471–510. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
www.annualreviews.org • Advances in the Sociology of Higher Education 143
A nn
u. R
ev . S
oc io
l. 2
00 8.
34 :1
27 -1
51 . D
ow nl
oa de
d fr
om w
w w
.a nn
ua lr
ev ie
w s.
or g
A cc
es s
pr ov
id ed
b y
S an
J os
e S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
it y
on 0
6/ 02
/2 1.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
ANRV348-SO34-07 ARI 7 June 2008 16:31
Astin A. 1993. What Matters in College: Four Critical Years Revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Attewell P, Lavin DE. 2007. Passing the Torch: Does Higher Education for the Disadvantaged Pay Off
Across the Generations? New York: Russell Sage Found. Baltzell DE. 1958. Philadelphia Gentlemen: The Making of a National Upper Class. New York: Free
Press Bastedo MN, Gumport PJ. 2004. Access to what? Mission differentiation and academic stratifi-
cation in U.S. higher education. High. Educ. 46:341–59 Becker HS, Greer B, Hughes EC, Strauss A. 1968. Making the Grade: The Academic Side of College
Life. New York: Wiley Behrman JR, Rosensweig MR, Taubman P. 1996. College choice and wages: estimates using data
on female twins. Rev. Econ. Stat. 78:672–85 Bergerson A. 2007. Exploring the impact of social class on adjustment to college: Anna’s story.
Int. J. Qual. Stud. Educ. 20:99–119 Black DA, Smith JA. 2006. Estimating the returns to college quality with multiple proxies for
quality. J. Lab. Econ. 24:701–28 Blau PM, Duncan OD. 1967. The American Occupational Structure. New York: John Wiley Boli J, Ramirez FO, Meyer JW. 1985. Explaining the origins and expansion of mass education.
Comp. Educ. Rev. 29:145–70 Bourdieu P. 1973. Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In Knowledge, Education, and
Cultural Change: Papers in the Sociology of Education, ed. R Brown, pp. 71–112. London: Tavistock
Bourdieu P. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
Bourdieu P. 1996. The State Nobility: Elite Schools in the Field of Power. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
Bourdieu P, Passeron J-C. 1977. Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. Beverly Hills: Sage Bowen WG, Bok D. 1998. The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in
College and University Admissions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press Bowen WG, Kurzweil MA, Tobin EM. 2005. Equity and Excellence in American Higher Education.
Charlottesville: Univ. Va. Press Boyer EL. 1987. The Undergraduate Experience in America. New York: Harper & Row Braxton JM, Sullivan A, Johnson RM. 1997. Appraising Tinto’s theory of college student departure.
In Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, ed. J Smart, pp. 107–64. New York: Agathon
Breen R, Goldthorpe JH. 1997. Explaining educational differentials: towards a formal rational action theory. Ration. Soc. 9:275–305
Brewer DJ, Ehrenberg RG. 1996. Does it pay to attend an elite private college? Evidence from the senior high school class of 1980. Res. Labor Econ. 15:239–71
Brewer DJ, Eide ER, Ehrenberg RG. 1999. Does it pay to attend an elite college? Cross-cohort evidence on the effects of college type on earnings. J. Hum. Resour. 34:104–23
Brint S. 2000. Higher education. In Encyclopedia of Sociology, ed. EF Borgatta, RJV Montgomery, pp. 1178–86. New York: Macmillan Ref. 2nd ed.
Brint S. 2002. The Future of the City of Intellect: The Changing American University. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
Brint S. 2005. Creating the future: ‘new directions’ in American research universities. Minerva 43:23–50
Brint S, Karabel J. 1989. The Diverted Dream: Community Colleges and the Promise of Educational Opportunity in America, 1900–1985. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
144 Stevens · Armstrong · Arum
A nn
u. R
ev . S
oc io
l. 2
00 8.
34 :1
27 -1
51 . D
ow nl
oa de
d fr
om w
w w
.a nn
ua lr
ev ie
w s.
or g
A cc
es s
pr ov
id ed
b y
S an
J os
e S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
it y
on 0
6/ 02
/2 1.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
ANRV348-SO34-07 ARI 7 June 2008 16:31
Brint S, Riddle M, Hanneman RA. 2006. Reference sets as indicators of identity and aspiration in a complex organizational field: the case of American four-year colleges and universities. Sociol. Educ. 79:229–52
Brown TL, Parks GS, Phillips CM. 2005. African American Fraternities and Sororities: The Legacy and the Vision. Lexington: Univ. Press Ky.
Buchmann C, DiPrete T. 2006. The growing female advantage in college completion: the role of family background and academic achievement. Am. Sociol. Rev. 71:515–41
Buchmann C, DiPrete TA, McDaniel A. 2008. Gender inequalities in education. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 34:319–37
Buerkle K, Guseva A. 2002. What do you know, who do you know? School as a site for the production of social capital and its effects on income attainment in Poland and the Czech Republic. Am. J. Econ. Sociol. 61:657–80
Burris V. 2004. The academic caste system: prestige hierarchies in PhD exchange networks. Am. Sociol. Rev. 69:239–64
Calhoun C. 2000. The specificity of American higher education. Comp. Soc. Res. 19:47–81 Calhoun C. 2006. The university and the public good. Thesis Eleven 84:7–43 Carley K. 1985. An approach to relating social structure to cognitive structure. J. Math. Soc.
12:137–89 Carr P, Kefalas M. 2004. Straight from the heartland: coming of age in Ellis, Iowa. Presented at Annu.
Meet. Am. Sociol. Assoc., San Francisco, Aug 14 Chambliss DF. 2003–2004. Progress Report for the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. Clinton, NY:
Hamilton College Chang MJ, Astin A, Kim D. 2004. Cross-racial interaction among undergraduates: some conse-
quences, causes, and patterns. Res. High. Educ. 45:529–53 Christie NG, Dinham SM. 1991. Institutional and external influences on social integration in the
freshman year. J. High. Educ. 62:412–36 Clark BR, Trow M. 1966. The organizational context. In College Peer Groups: Problems and Prospects
for Research, ed. TM Newcombe, EK Wilson, pp. 17–70. Chicago: Aldine Clotfelter CT. 1996. Buying the Best: Cost Escalation in Elite Higher Education. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton Univ. Press/Natl. Bur. Econ. Res. Cohen L. 2003. A Consumer’s Republic: The Politics of Mass Consumption in Postwar America. New
York: Knopf Colemen JS. 1961. The Adolescent Society: The Social Life of the Teenager and Its Impact on Education.
New York: Free Press Collins R. 1971. Functional and conflict theories of educational stratification. Am. Sociol. Rev.
36:1002–19 Collins R. 1979. The Credential Society: An Historical Sociology of Education and Stratification. New
York: Academic Colyvas JA, Powell WW. 2006. Roads to institutionalization: the remaking of boundaries between
public and private science. Res. Organ. Behav. 27:315–63 Colyvas JA, Powell WW. 2007. From vulnerable to venerated: the institutionalization of academic
entrepreneurship in the life sciences. Res. Sociol. Organ. 25:219–59 Cookson PWJ, Persell CH. 1985. Preparing for Power: America’s Elite Boarding Schools. New York:
Basic Books Corsaro WA. 1997. The Sociology of Childhood. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Corsaro WA, Molinari L. 2000. Priming events and Italian children’s transition from preschool
to elementary school: representations in action. Soc. Psychol. Q. 63:16–33 Dale SB, Krueger AB. 2002. Estimating the payoff to attending a more selective college: an
application of selection on observables and unobservables. Q. J. Econ. 117:1491–527
www.annualreviews.org • Advances in the Sociology of Higher Education 145
A nn
u. R
ev . S
oc io
l. 2
00 8.
34 :1
27 -1
51 . D
ow nl
oa de
d fr
om w
w w
.a nn
ua lr
ev ie
w s.
or g
A cc
es s
pr ov
id ed
b y
S an
J os
e S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
it y
on 0
6/ 02
/2 1.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
ANRV348-SO34-07 ARI 7 June 2008 16:31
Davies S, Hammack FM. 2005. The channeling of student competition in higher education: comparing Canada and the US. J. High. Educ. 76:89–106
Deegan MJ. 1988. Jane Addams and the Men of the Chicago School, 1892–1918. Edison, NJ: Transaction
DeLuca S, Bozick R. 2005. Better late than never? Delayed enrollment in the high school to college transition. Soc. Forces 84:527–50
DiMaggio P. 1982a. Cultural capital and school success: the impact of status culture participation on the grades of U.S. high school students. Am. Sociol. Rev. 47:189–201
DiMaggio P. 1982b. Cultural entrepreneurship in nineteenth-century Boston, Part I: The creation of an organizational base for high culture in America. Media Cult. Soc. 4:33–50
DiMaggio P. 1982c. Cultural entrepreneurship in nineteenth-century Boston, Part II: The clas- sification and framing of American art. Media Cult. Soc. 4:303–22
DiMaggio P. 1987. Classification in art. Am. Sociol. Rev. 52:440–55 DiMaggio P, Louch H. 1998. Socially embedded consumer transactions: For what kinds of pur-
chases do people most often use networks? Am. Sociol. Rev. 63:619–37 DiMaggio P, Mohr J. 1987. Cultural capital, educational attainment, and marital selection. Am.
J. Sociol. 90:1231–61 DiPrete T, Buchmann C. 2006. Gender-specific trends in the value of education and the emerging
gender gap in college completion. Demography 43:1–24 Dougherty KJ. 1994. The Contradictory College: The Conflicting Origins, Impacts, and Futures of the
Community College. Albany: SUNY Press Eder D, Evans CC, Parker S. 1995. School Talk: Gender and Adolescent Culture. New Brunswick,
NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press Ehrenberg RG. 2000. Tuition Rising: Why College Costs So Much. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ.
Press Erickson B. 1996. Class, culture, and connections. Am. J. Sociol. 102:217–51 Erskine W, Spalter-Roth R. 2006. Profile of 2005 ASA Membership. Washington, DC: Am. Sociol.
Assoc. Espeland WN, Sauder M. 2007. Rankings and reactivity: how public measures reconstruct the
social world. Am. J. Sociol. 113:1–40 Featherman DL, Hauser RM. 1978. Opportunity and Change. New York: Academic Fischer MJ, Massey DS. 2006. The effects of affirmative action in higher education. Soc. Sci. Res.
36:531–49 Frank DJ, Gabler J. 2006. Reconstructing the University: Worldwide Shifts in Academia in the Twentieth
Century. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press Frank DJ, Schofer ES, Torres JC. 1994. Rethinking history: change in the university curriculum,
1910–1990. Sociol. Educ. 67:231–42 Freidson E. 1986. Professional Powers: A Study of the Institutionalization of Formal Knowledge. Chicago:
Univ. Chicago Press Gabay-Egozi L, Shavit Y, Yaish M. 2007. Inequality by choice? A test of the rational action model of
educational stratification. Presented at Am. Sociol. Assoc. Annu. Meet., New York, Aug. 11 Geiger RL. 2002. The competition for high-ability students: Universities in a key marketplace.
See Brint 2002, pp. 82–106 Gerber TP, Cheung SY. 2008. Horizontal stratification in postsecondary education: forms, ex-
planations, and implications. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 34:299–318 Gerth HH, Mills CW, eds. 1946. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford Univ.
Press Goldrick-Rab S. 2006. Following their every move: an investigation of social class differences in
college pathways. Sociol. Educ. 79:61–79
146 Stevens · Armstrong · Arum
A nn
u. R
ev . S
oc io
l. 2
00 8.
34 :1
27 -1
51 . D
ow nl
oa de
d fr
om w
w w
.a nn
ua lr
ev ie
w s.
or g
A cc
es s
pr ov
id ed
b y
S an
J os
e S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
it y
on 0
6/ 02
/2 1.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
ANRV348-SO34-07 ARI 7 June 2008 16:31
Granfield R. 1991. Making it by faking it: working-class students in an elite academic environment. J. Contemp. Ethnogr. 20:331–51
Granovetter MS. 1974. Getting a Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
Grodsky E. 2007. Compensatory sponsorship in higher education. Am. J. Sociol. 112:1662–712 Grodsky ES, Warren JR, Felts E. 2008. Testing and social stratification in American education.
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 34:385–404 Gross N. 2008. Richard Rorty: The Making of an American Philosopher. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Press Grubb NW. 2002. Learning and earning in the middle. Part I: National studies of prebaccalaureate
education. Econ. Educ. Rev. 21:299–321 Guetzkow J, Lamont M, Mallard G. 2004. What is originality in the humanities and the social
sciences? Am. Sociol. Rev. 69:190–212 Gumport PJ. 2002. Universities and knowledge: restructuring the city of intellect. See Brint 2002,
pp. 47–81 Gumport PJ, Pusser B. 1999. University restructuring: the role of economic and political contexts.
High. Educ.: Handb. Theory Res. 14:146–200 Gusfield JR. 1974. The American university (book review). Contemp. Sociol. 3:291–95 Hall PD. 1992. The Organization of American Culture, 1700–1900: Private Institutions, Elites, and
the Origins of American Nationality. New York: N. Y. Univ. Press Hamilton L. 2007. Trading on heterosexuality: college women’s gender strategies and homopho-
bia. Gender Soc. 21:145–72 Holland D, Eisenhart M. 1990. Educated in Romance: Women, Achievement, and College Culture.
Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Horowitz HL. 1987. Campus Life: Undergraduate Cultures from the End of the Eighteenth Century to
the Present. New York: Knopf Hout M. 1988. More universalism and less structural mobility: the American occupational struc-
ture in the 1980s. Am. J. Sociol. 93:1358–400 Hunter J, Bowman C. 1996. The State of Disunion: 1996 Survey of American Political Culture. Ivy,
VA: In Media Res Educ. Found. Hurtado S, Carter DF. 1997. Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus racial
climate on Latino college students’ sense of belonging. Sociol. Educ. 70:324–45 Hurtado S, Millem J, Clayton-Pederson A, Allen W. 1999. Enacting Diverse Learning Environments:
Improving the Climate for Racial/Ethnic Diversity in Higher Education. Washington, DC: George Wash. Univ., Grad. Sch. Educ. Hum. Dev.
Inst. Int. Educ. 2007. Open Doors: Report on International Educational Exchange. New York: Inst. Int. Educ.
Jacobs JA, King RB. 2002. Age and college completion: a life-history analysis of women aged 15–44. Sociol. Educ. 75:211–30
Jencks C. 1972. Inequality: A Reassessment of the Effect of Family and Schooling in America. New York: Basic Books
Jencks C, Riesman D. 1968. The Academic Revolution. New York: Doubleday Kane TJ, Rouse CE. 1995. Labor-market returns to two and four year college. Am. Econ. Rev.
85:600–14 Karabel J. 1984. Status-group struggle, organizational interests, and the limits on institutional
autonomy: the transformation of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, 1918–1940. Theory Soc. 13:1– 40
Karabel J. 2005. The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. New York: Houghton Mifflin
www.annualreviews.org • Advances in the Sociology of Higher Education 147
A nn
u. R
ev . S
oc io
l. 2
00 8.
34 :1
27 -1
51 . D
ow nl
oa de
d fr
om w
w w
.a nn
ua lr
ev ie
w s.
or g
A cc
es s
pr ov
id ed
b y
S an
J os
e S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
it y
on 0
6/ 02
/2 1.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
ANRV348-SO34-07 ARI 7 June 2008 16:31
Karen D. 1991. The politics of race, class, and gender: access to higher education in the United States, 1960–1986. Am. J. Educ. 99:208–37
Karen D. 2002. Changes in access to higher education in the United States: 1980–1992. Sociol. Educ. 75:191–210
Kaufman J, Gabler J. 2004. Cultural capital and the extracurricular activities of girls and boys in the college attainment process. Poetics 32:145–68
Keohane N. 1993. The mission of the research university. Daedalus 122:101–25 Kerr C. 2001. The Uses of the University. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press Kim HD, Schneider BL. 2005. Social capital in action: alignment of parental support in adoles-
cents’ transition to postsecondary education. Soc. Forces 84:1181–206 Kingston PW, Hubbard R, Lapp B, Schroeder P, Wilson J. 2003. Why education matters. Sociol.
Educ. 76:53–70 Kleinman DL. 1995. Politics on the Endless Frontier: Postwar Research Policy in the United States.
Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press Kossinets G, Watts DJ. 2006. Empirical analysis of an evolving social network. Science 311:88–90 Kuh GD. 1997. A comparison of student experiences with good practices in undergraduate edu-
cation between 1990 and 1994. Rev. High. Educ. 21:43–61 Labaree DF. 1997. How to Succeed in School Without Really Learning: The Credentials Race in American
Education. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press Lakoff G, Johnson M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Lamont M. 1992. Money, Morals, and Manners: The Culture of the French and American Upper-Middle
Class. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Lareau A. 2003. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Lareau A. 2007. Class, race, and child rearing: an emerging picture from a longitudinal ethnography.
Presented at Sociol. Dep. Colloq., Indiana Univ., Bloomington, March 20 Larson MS. 1977. The Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Larson RF, Leslie GR. 1968. Prestige influences in serious dating relationships of university
students. Soc. Forces 47:195–202 Laumann EO, Ellingson S, Mahay J, Paik A, Youm Y, eds. 2004. The Sexual Organization of the
City. Chicago: The Univ. Chicago Press LeTendre GK, Gonzales RG, Nomi T. 2006. Feeding the elite: the evolution of elite pathways
from star high schools to elite universities. High. Educ. Policy 19:7–30 Light DJ. 2004. Making the Most of College: Students Speak Their Minds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Univ. Press Long BT, Reily EK. 2007. The demand side of student loans: the changing face for borrowers. In
Footing the Tuition Bill: The New Student Loan Sector, ed. FM Hess, pp. 136–156. Washington, DC: Am. Enterp. Inst. Press
Lowen RS. 1997. Creating the Cold War University: The Transformation of Stanford. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Mare RD. 1980. Social background and school continuation decisions. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 75:295– 305
Mare RD. 1991. Five decades of educational assortative mating. Am. Sociol. Rev. 56:15–32 Massey DS, Charles CZ, Lundy G, Fischer MJ. 2003. The Source of the River: The Social Origins of
Freshmen at America’s Selective Colleges and Universities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press McCumber J. 2001. Time in the Ditch: American Philosophy and the McCarthy Era. Evanston, IL:
Northwest. Univ. Press McPherson MM, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM. 2001. Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks.
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 27:415–44
148 Stevens · Armstrong · Arum
A nn
u. R
ev . S
oc io
l. 2
00 8.
34 :1
27 -1
51 . D
ow nl
oa de
d fr
om w
w w
.a nn
ua lr
ev ie
w s.
or g
A cc
es s
pr ov
id ed
b y
S an
J os
e S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
it y
on 0
6/ 02
/2 1.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
ANRV348-SO34-07 ARI 7 June 2008 16:31
Mettler S. 2005. Soldiers to Citizens. New York: Oxford Univ. Press Meyer JW. 1977. The effects of education as an institution. Am. J. Sociol. 83:55–77 Meyer JW. 1986. Types of explanation in the sociology of education. In Handbook of Theory and
Research for the Sociology of Education, ed. J Richardson, pp. 341–59. New York: Greenwood Meyer JW, Boli J, Thomas GM. 1994. Ontology and rationalization in the western cultural
account. In Institutional Environments and Organizations, ed. RW Scott, JW Meyer, pp. 9–27. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Meyer JW, Ramirez FO, Frank DJ, Schofer E. 2007. Higher education as an institution. In Sociology of Higher Education: Contributions and Their Contexts, ed. PJ Gumport, pp. 187–221. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press
Meyer JW, Rowan B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and cere- mony. Am. J. Sociol. 83:340–63
Meyer JW, Rowan B. 1978. The structure of educational organizations. In Environments and Organizations, ed. M Meyer, et al., pp. 78–109. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Milner M. 2004. Freaks, Geeks, and Cool Kids: American Teenagers, Schools, and the Culture of Consumption. New York: Routledge
Moffatt M. 1989. Coming of Age in New Jersey: College and American Culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press
Morgan SL. 2005. On the Edge of Commitment: Educational Attainment and Race in the United States. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
Müller W, Shavit Y. 1998. The institutional embeddedness of the stratification process: A com- parative study of qualifications and occupations in thirteen countries. In From School to Work: A Comparative Study of Educational Qualifications and Occupational Destinations, ed. Y Shavit, W Müller, pp. 1–48. Oxford: Clarendon
Nathan R. 2005. My Freshman Year: What a Professor Learned by Becoming a Student. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
Owen-Smith J. 2003. From separate systems to a hybrid order: accumulative advantage across public and private science at research one universities. Res. Policy 32:1081–104
Owen-Smith J. 2005. Trends and transitions in the institutional environment of public and private science. J. High. Educ. 49:91–117
Parsons T, Platt GM. 1973. The American University. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press Pascarella E. 1985. College environmental influences on learning and development: a critical
review and synthesis. In Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, ed. J Smart, pp. 1–64. New York: Agathon
Pascarella ET, Terenzini PT. 2005. How College Affects Students: A Third Decade of Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Powell WW, Owen-Smith J, Colyvas JA. 2007. Innovation and emulation: lessons from American universities in selling private rights to public knowledge. Minerva 45:121–42
Powell WW, White DR, Koput KW, Owen-Smith J. 2005. Network dynamics and field evolution: the growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences. Am. J. Sociol. 110:1132– 205
Ramirez FO. 2002. Eyes wide shut: university, state, and society. Eur. Educ. Res. J. 1:256–73 Ramirez FO, Boli J. 1987. The political construction of mass schooling: European origins and
worldwide institutionalization. Sociol. Educ. 60:2–17 Readings B. 1996. The University in Ruins. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press Reiss I. 1965. Social class and campus dating. Soc. Probl. 13:193–205 Rojas F. 2007. From Black Power to Black Studies: How a Radical Social Movement Became an Academic
Discipline. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press
www.annualreviews.org • Advances in the Sociology of Higher Education 149
A nn
u. R
ev . S
oc io
l. 2
00 8.
34 :1
27 -1
51 . D
ow nl
oa de
d fr
om w
w w
.a nn
ua lr
ev ie
w s.
or g
A cc
es s
pr ov
id ed
b y
S an
J os
e S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
it y
on 0
6/ 02
/2 1.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
ANRV348-SO34-07 ARI 7 June 2008 16:31
Roksa J. 2007. Building bridges for student success: Are articulation policies effective? Rep. Transit. Coll. Proj., Soc. Sci. Res. Counc., New York
Roksa J. 2008. Structuring access to higher education: the role of differentiation and privatization. Res. Soc. Stratif. Mobil. 26:57–75
Roksa J, Grodsky E, Arum R, Gamoran A. 2007. Changes in higher education and social stratifi- cation in the United States. See Shavit et al. 2007, pp. 165–91
Rosenbaum J. 2001. Beyond College for All: Career Paths for the Forgotten Half. New York: Russell Sage Found.
Royster DA. 2003. Race and the Invisible Hand: How White Networks Exclude Black Men from Blue- Collar Jobs. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Ruegg W, ed. 2004. A History of the University in Europe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Schofer E, Meyer JW. 2005. The world-wide expansion of higher education in the twentieth
century. Am. Sociol. Rev. 70:898–920 Schwartz CR, Mare RD. 2005. Trends in educational assortative marriage from 1940–2003. De-
mography 42:621–46 Scott JF. 1965. The American college sorority: its role in class and ethnic endogamy. Am. Sociol.
Rev. 30:514–27 Sewell WH, Haller AO, Portes A. 1969. The educational and early occupational process. Am.
Sociol. Rev. 34:83–92 Sewell WH, Shah VP. 1968. Social class, parental encouragement, and educational aspirations.
Am. J. Sociol. 73:559–72 Shavit Y, Arum R, Gamoran A. 2007. Stratification in Higher Education: A Comparative Study. Palo
Alto, CA: Stanford Univ. Press Shavit Y, Blossfield H-P. 1993. Persistent Inequality: Changing Educational Attainment in Thirteen
Countries. Boulder: Westview Shulman JL, Bowen WG. 2001. The Game of Life: College Sports and Educational Values. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton Univ. Press Skrentny JD. 2002. The Minority Rights Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press/Belknap Small ML, Winship C. 2007. Black students’ graduation from elite colleges: institutional charac-
teristics and between-institution differences. Soc. Sci. Res. 36:1257–75 Soares JA. 1999. The Decline of Privilege: The Modernization of Oxford University. Stanford, CA:
Stanford Univ. Press Soares JA. 2007. The Power of Privilege: Yale and America’s Elite Colleges. Stanford, CA: Stanford
Univ. Press Sorokin P. 1959 [1927]. Social and Cultural Mobility. New York: Free Press Stevens ML. 2007. Creating a Class: College Admissions and the Education of Elites. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Univ. Press Stinchcombe AL. 1990. Information and Organizations. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Story R. 1980. The Forging of an Aristocracy: Harvard and the Boston Upper Class, 1800–1885.
Middletown, CT: Wesleyan Univ. Press Stuber J. 2006a. Talk of class and discursive repertoires of white working and upper-middle class
college students. J. Contemp. Ethnogr. 35:285–318 Stuber J. 2006b. Within the walls and among the students: how white working-class and upper-middle-class
college students make sense of social class. PhD Diss. Indiana Univ., Bloomington Synnott MG. 1979. The Half-Opened Door: Discrimination and Admissions at Harvard, Yale, and
Princeton, 1900–1970. Westport: Greenwood Thelin JR. 2004. A History of American Higher Education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ.
Press
150 Stevens · Armstrong · Arum
A nn
u. R
ev . S
oc io
l. 2
00 8.
34 :1
27 -1
51 . D
ow nl
oa de
d fr
om w
w w
.a nn
ua lr
ev ie
w s.
or g
A cc
es s
pr ov
id ed
b y
S an
J os
e S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
it y
on 0
6/ 02
/2 1.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
ANRV348-SO34-07 ARI 7 June 2008 16:31
Tierney WG. 1992. An anthropological analysis of student participation in college. J. High. Educ. 63:603–18
Tinto V. 1987. Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Tinto V. 1988. Stages of student departure: reflections on the longitudinal character of student leaving. J. High. Educ. 59:438–55
Torres KC, Charles CZ. 2004. Metastereotypes and the black-white divide: a qualitative view of race on an elite college campus. DuBois Rev. 1:115–49
Treiman D, Ganzeboom HBG. 2000. The fourth generation of comparative stratification research. In The International Handbook of Sociology, ed. SR Quah, A Sales, pp. 122–50. London: Sage
Turner R. 1960. Sponsored and contest mobility and the school system. Am. Sociol. Rev. 25:855–67 Useem M, Karabel J. 1986. Pathways to top corporate management. Am. Sociol. Rev. 51:184–200 Wachter B. 2004. The Bologna process: developments and prospects. Eur. J. Educ. 39:265–73 Waller W. 1937. The rating and dating complex. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2:727–34 Walpole M. 2003. Socioeconomic status and college: how SES affects college experiences and
outcomes. Rev. High. Educ. 27:45–73 Walters PB. 2000. The limits of growth: school expansion and school reform in historical per-
spective. In Handbook of the Sociology of Education, ed. MT Hallinan, pp. 241–61. New York: Kluwer
Wechsler HS. 1977. The Qualified Student: A History of Selective College Admissions in America. New York: John Wiley
Weick KE. 1976. Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Admin. Sci. Q. 21:1–19 Westbrook R. 1992. Schools for industrial democrats: the social origins of John Dewey’s philosophy
of education. Am. J. Educ. 100:401–19 Winston GC, Zimmerman DJ. 2004. Peer effects in higher education. In College Choices: The
Economics of Where to Go, When to Go, and How to Pay for It, ed. CM Hoxby, pp. 395–423. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Zweigenhaft R. 1993. Prep school and public school graduates of Harvard: a longitudinal study of the accumulation of social and cultural capital. J. High. Educ. 64:211–25
RELATED RESOURCES
Colleges and Universities 2000 Study. http://www.higher-ed2000.ucr.edu Gumport PJ, ed. 2007. The Sociology of Higher Education: Contributions and Their Contexts.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press The Transformation of Public Universities. http://publicuniversities.ssrc.org
www.annualreviews.org • Advances in the Sociology of Higher Education 151
A nn
u. R
ev . S
oc io
l. 2
00 8.
34 :1
27 -1
51 . D
ow nl
oa de
d fr
om w
w w
.a nn
ua lr
ev ie
w s.
or g
A cc
es s
pr ov
id ed
b y
S an
J os
e S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
it y
on 0
6/ 02
/2 1.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
AR348-FM ARI 10 June 2008 11:22
Annual Review of Sociology
Volume 34, 2008Contents
Prefatory Chapters
Reproductive Biology, Technology, and Gender Inequality: An Autobiographical Essay Joan N. Huber � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 1
From Mead to a Structural Symbolic Interactionism and Beyond Sheldon Stryker � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �15
Theory and Methods
Methodological Memes and Mores: Toward a Sociology of Social Research Erin Leahey � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �33
Social Processes
After Secularization? Philip S. Gorski and Ateş Altınordu � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �55
Institutions and Culture
Religion and Science: Beyond the Epistemological Conflict Narrative John H. Evans and Michael S. Evans � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �87
Black/White Differences in School Performance: The Oppositional Culture Explanation Douglas B. Downey � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 107
Formal Organizations
Sieve, Incubator, Temple, Hub: Empirical and Theoretical Advances in the Sociology of Higher Education Mitchell L. Stevens, Elizabeth A. Armstrong, and Richard Arum � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 127
Political and Economic Sociology
Citizenship and Immigration: Multiculturalism, Assimilation, and Challenges to the Nation-State Irene Bloemraad, Anna Korteweg, and Gökçe Yurdakul � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 153
v
A nn
u. R
ev . S
oc io
l. 2
00 8.
34 :1
27 -1
51 . D
ow nl
oa de
d fr
om w
w w
.a nn
ua lr
ev ie
w s.
or g
A cc
es s
pr ov
id ed
b y
S an
J os
e S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
it y
on 0
6/ 02
/2 1.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
AR348-FM ARI 10 June 2008 11:22
Differentiation and Stratification
The Sociology of Discrimination: Racial Discrimination in Employment, Housing, Credit, and Consumer Markets Devah Pager and Hana Shepherd � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 181
The Second Generation in Western Europe: Education, Unemployment, and Occupational Attainment Anthony F. Heath, Catherine Rothon, and Elina Kilpi � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 211
Broken Down by Race and Gender? Sociological Explanations of New Sources of Earnings Inequality Kevin T. Leicht � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 237
Family Structure and the Reproduction of Inequalities Sara McLanahan and Christine Percheski � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 257
Unconscious Racism: A Concept in Pursuit of a Measure Hart Blanton and James Jaccard � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 277
Individual and Society
Horizontal Stratification in Postsecondary Education: Forms, Explanations, and Implications Theodore P. Gerber and Sin Yi Cheung � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 299
Gender Inequalities in Education Claudia Buchmann, Thomas A. DiPrete, and Anne McDaniel � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 319
Access to Civil Justice and Race, Class, and Gender Inequality Rebecca L. Sandefur � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 339
How the Outside Gets In: Modeling Conversational Permeation David R. Gibson � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 359
Testing and Social Stratification in American Education Eric Grodsky, John Robert Warren, and Erika Felts � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 385
Policy
Social Networks and Health Kirsten P. Smith and Nicholas A. Christakis � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 405
Sociology and World Regions
Gender in African Population Research: The Fertility/Reproductive Health Example F. Nii-Amoo Dodoo and Ashley E. Frost � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 431
Regional Institutions and Social Development in Southern Africa Matthew McKeever � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 453
vi Contents
A nn
u. R
ev . S
oc io
l. 2
00 8.
34 :1
27 -1
51 . D
ow nl
oa de
d fr
om w
w w
.a nn
ua lr
ev ie
w s.
or g
A cc
es s
pr ov
id ed
b y
S an
J os
e S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
it y
on 0
6/ 02
/2 1.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
AR348-FM ARI 10 June 2008 11:22
Conditional Cash Transfers as Social Policy in Latin America: An Assessment of their Contributions and Limitations [Translation] Enrique Valencia Lomelı́ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 475
Las Transferencias Monetarias Condicionadas como Política Social en América Latina. Un Balance: Aportes, Límites y Debates [Original, available online at http://www.annualreviews.org/ go/EValenciaLomeli] Enrique Valencia Lomelí � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 499
Indexes
Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 25–34 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 525
Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 25–34 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 529
Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Sociology articles may be found at http://soc.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml
Contents vii
A nn
u. R
ev . S
oc io
l. 2
00 8.
34 :1
27 -1
51 . D
ow nl
oa de
d fr
om w
w w
.a nn
ua lr
ev ie
w s.
or g
A cc
es s
pr ov
id ed
b y
S an
J os
e S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
it y
on 0
6/ 02
/2 1.
F or
p er
so na
l us
e on
ly .
- Annual Reviews Online
- Search Annual Reviews
- Annual Review of Sociology Online
- Most Downloaded Sociology Reviews
- Most Cited Sociology Reviews
- Annual Review of Sociology Errata
- View Current Editorial Committee
- All Articles in the Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 34
- Reproductive Biology, Technology, and Gender Inequality: An Autobiographical Essay
- From Mead to a Structural Symbolic Interactionism and Beyond
- Methodological Memes and Mores: Toward a Sociology of Social Research
- After Secularization?
- Religion and Science: Beyond the Epistemological Conflict Narrative
- Black/White Differences in School Performance: The Oppositional Culture Explanation
- Sieve, Incubator, Temple, Hub: Empirical and Theoretical Advances in the Sociology of Higher Education
- Citizenship and Immigration: Multiculturalism, Assimilation, and Challenges to the Nation-State
- The Sociology of Discrimination: Racial Discriminationin Employment, Housing, Credit, and Consumer Markets
- The Second Generation in Western Europe: Education, Unemployment, and Occupational Attainment
- Broken Down by Race and Gender? Sociological Explanations of New Sources of Earnings Inequality
- Family Structure and the Reproduction of Inequalities
- Unconscious Racism: A Concept in Pursuit of a Measure
- Horizontal Stratification in Postsecondary Education: Forms, Explanations, and Implications
- Access to Civil Justice and Race, Class, and Gender Inequality
- How the Outside Gets In: Modeling Conversational Permeation
- Testing and Social Stratification in American Education
- Social Networks and Health
- Gender in African Population Research: The Fertility/ Reproductive Health Example
- Regional Institutions and Social Development in Southern Africa
- Conditional Cash Transfers as Social Policy in Latin America: An Assessment of their Contributions and Limitations [Translation]
- Las Transferencias Monetarias Condicionadas como Política Social en América Latina. Un Balance: Aportes, Límites y Debates
