Theodore Larkin

Sociology of Education
SOC307/EDS307
TuTh 11:30 12:45

Professor Rubinson
Fall 2013
Tarbutton 111

Understanding Education: Schooling as Status Competition

Dewey argued that it was the job of education to encourage individuals to develop
their full potential as human beings. Deweys philosophy, similar to that of the human
capital approach to schooling, hoped that the education system he proposed would
promote flexibility and tolerance, and individuals would be able to cooperate together as
equals. While education is supposed to be free and open to all, in reality certain
individuals have much greater opportunities than the majority of students and conflict
theory is prominent throughout our educational system.
Conflict theory states that employment requirements mirror the efforts of
competing status groups to dominate the job market by imposing their cultural standards
or advantages on the selection process. The status conflict perspective on education
considers schools as being intuitions that "perpetuate" social inequalities in terms of
class, gender, ethnicity, and race. As specific groups seek to preserve a position of
"privilege", the conflict perspective explains why certain individuals benefit more from
the education system and others do not. Conflict theory is responsible for for a large part
of the increased schooling required for employment in todays advanced industrial
society.
Human capital theory emphasizes that education boosts the productivity and
efficiency of workers through the increasing levels of economically productive human
capability. The provision of formal education is seen as an investment in human capital,

which proponents of the theory have considered as equally or even more worthwhile than
that of physical capital (Woodhall, 1997). Human capital is achieved by working with
students to produce in them proficiencies and capabilities that make them more
productive and is composed of the abilities, knowledge, and dispositions amongst
individual members of a community. Therefore human capital becomes a profitable
benefit for both individuals and the community. In short, human capital theorists contend
that an educated population is a productive population. The product of human capital
theory is a qualified individual whose enriched productive capacity is manifested in a
flow of enhanced services. Because the training of the individual and the benefits take
place over a considerable time period, the value of the resources used in this process may
be considered as investment, and the accredited growth in gross power that results from
training may be considered as its yield.
The fulfillment of ones education is closely linked to social class. Students of
low socioeconomic status are generally not afforded the same opportunities as students of
higher status, no matter how great their academic ability or desire to learn. Many students
from working class families have to contend with helping out at home, contributing
financially to the family, poor study environments and a lack of support from their
families. This is a difficult match with education systems that adhere to a traditional
curriculum that is more easily understood and completed by students of higher social
classes. Further, the higher tuition costs at professional institutions also tend to keep
some classes away from higher achievements in life. Conflict theorists believe that the
education system is a means by which those in power stay in power and push people of
lower status into obedience. Conflict theorists do not believe that public schools reduce

social inequality. Rather, they believe that the educational system reinforces and
perpetuates social inequalities arising from differences in class, gender, race, and
ethnicity.
A number of studies have shown that the number of years of education is a strong
determinant of occupational achievement in America with constant social origins. They
also show that social origins affect educational attainment, and also occupational
attainment after the completion of education (Blau and Duncan, 1967; Eckland, 1965;
Sewell et al., 1969; Duncan and Hodge, 1963; Lipset and Bendix, 1959). Formal
education has expanded throughout the history of the United States, particularly since
World War II. With each passing generation more people are attending school, staying in
school longer, and spending more on formal education. The school year is longer and
students attend a higher percentage of their classes (U.S. National Center for Education
Statistics, 1975: 34-35). Educational requirements for employment have become
increasingly widespread, not only in elite occupations but also at the bottom of the
occupational hierarchy. In a 1967 survey of the San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose
areas (Collins, 1969), 17% of the employers surveyed required at least a high school
diploma for employment in even unskilled positions. At the same time, the proportions of
the American population attending schools through the completion of high school and
advanced levels have risen sharply during the last century. Careers are thus increasingly
shaped within the educational system.
One theory proposes that the skill requirements of jobs in industrial society
constantly increase because of technological change. The proportion of jobs requiring
low skill decreases and the proportion requiring high skill increases. Additionally, the

same jobs are upgraded in skill requirements. Formal education provides the training
necessary for the more highly skilled jobs. Therefore, educational requirements for
employment constantly rise, and increasingly larger proportions of the population are
required to spend longer and longer periods in school. The ability to fill positions,
and/or the motivation to acquire the necessary training, is unequally distributed in the
population and inequalities of rewards in wealth and prestige evolve to ensure that the
supply of persons with the necessary ability or training meshes with the structure of
demands for skilled performance.
Class background is the most important factor influencing levels of attainment;
those who can afford to pay well, or come from well-off classes achieve higher-level
jobs. Children of the wealthy and powerful, through special coaching and increased
opportunities, obtain high qualifications and highly rewarded jobs, irrespective of their
abilities. This again segregates students on the basis of financial capacity. Thus our
educational system increases the gap between social classes, confirms the status conflict
perspective and helps maintain the existing class system.