Sociology of Education

Research shows that college students choose majors for a variety of reasons. Some students are motivated by potential economic returns, others want to take engaging classes, and others still would like opportunities to help people in their jobs. But how do these preferences map onto students’ actual major choices? This question is particularly intriguing in light of gender differences in fields of study, as men and women may take divergent pathways in pursuit of the same outcome. Using data from the Pathways through College Study (N = 2,639), I show that men and women choose very different majors even when they cite the same major preferences—what I call gendered logics of major choice. In addition, I use earnings data from the American Community Survey to assess how these gendered logics of major choice may be associated with broader patterns of earnings inequality. I find that among men and women who have the same major preferences, men’s major choices are tied to significantly higher prospective earnings than women’s major choices. This finding demonstrates that the ways men and women translate their preferences into majors are unequal from an earnings perspective. Implications for research on higher education and gender are discussed.

Contradictory evidence of the relationship between education funding and student achievement could reflect heterogeneous effects by revenue source or student characteristics. This study examines potential heterogeneous effects of a particular type of local revenue—bond funds for capital investments—on achievement by socioeconomic status. Comparing California school districts within a narrow window on either side of the cutoff of voter support required to pass a general obligation bond measure, I use dynamic regression discontinuity models to estimate effects of passing a bond on academic achievement among low- and high-socioeconomic-status (SES) students. Results consistently suggest that passing a bond increases achievement among low- but not high-SES students. However, these benefits for low-SES students are delayed and emerge six years after an election. Effects are larger in low-income districts and in small districts, where benefits of capital investments are experienced by a larger proportion of students.

Debates in education policy draw on different theories about how to raise children’s achievement. The school competition theory holds that achievement rises when students can choose among competing schools. The school resources theory holds that achievement rises with schools’ resources per student. The family resources theory holds that achievement rises as parents become more educated and earn higher incomes. We test all three theories in Chile between 2002 and 2013, when reading and math scores rose by 0.2 to 0.3 standard deviations, as school competition, school resources, and family resources all increased. We compare Chilean municipalities in a difference-in-differences analysis, asking whether test scores rose fastest in municipalities with greater increases in school competition, school resources, or family resources. We find that municipal test scores did not rise with school competition but did rise with family resources (parental education, not income) and, to a smaller extent, with school resources (as measured by class sizes). Results favor the family resource theory, and to a lesser extent the school resource theory, but not the school competition theory.

Status transmission theory argues that leading educational institutions prepare individuals from privileged backgrounds for positions of prestige and power in their societies. We examine the educational backgrounds of more than 2,900 members of the U.S. cultural elite and compare these backgrounds to a sample of nearly 4,000 business and political leaders. We find that the leading U.S. educational institutions are substantially more important for preparing future members of the cultural elite than they are for preparing future members of the business or political elite. In addition, members of the cultural elite who are recognized for outstanding achievements by peers and experts are much more likely to have obtained degrees from the leading educational institutions than are those who achieve acclaim from popular audiences. By focusing on the extent to which industries and cultural domains depend on quickness and facility in the absorption and manipulation of complex and sophisticated symbolic media, our analysis leads to an important specification of the role of highly selective colleges and universities in elite formation.

This article draws from American research on ‘‘concerted cultivation’’ to compare the parenting logics of 41 upper-middle-class parents in Toronto, Canada. We consider not only how parents structure their children’s after-school time (what parents do) but also how the broader ecology of schooling informs their parenting logics (how they rationalize their actions). We find that parenting practices mirror American research. Upper-middle-class families enroll their children in multiple lessons and cultivate their children’s skills. However, unlike their American counterparts, Canadian parenting logics are not explicitly stratification oriented, guided by a desire to access elite universities. Canada’s relatively flat stratification system of higher education, where prestige differences between universities are minimal, prompts the emergence of a more expressive parenting ethos. Our findings draw attention to the macrofoundations of social behavior by articulating the connection between parenting logics and educational status hierarchies. We conclude by considering the implications of cross-national differences to theories of parenting and social stratification.