特权野心家、工人阶级理想主义者:使阶级、大学价值观和课程选择的关系复杂化

IF 4 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Mary L. Scherer
{"title":"特权野心家、工人阶级理想主义者:使阶级、大学价值观和课程选择的关系复杂化","authors":"Mary L. Scherer","doi":"10.1080/17508487.2022.2052736","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Research suggests that class-privileged students value learning for its own sake and study the liberal arts, while working-class students believe college is a means to an end. However, recent studies indicate that these associations are weakening. This paper investigates the link between class background, college values, and curricular choices, specifically course selection. In interviews with 68 working- and upper-middle-class liberal arts majors at two public universities in the northeastern U.S., nearly all students endorsed liberal education values (the belief that higher education is for personal edification) which they claimed to value above labor market outcomes. Working-class students chose courses in accordance with those values; however, upper-middle-class students chose courses for perceived career relevance or those rumored to be an ‘easy A’. Although it appears that college logics have flipped, I argue that they remain rooted in social class. I then consider implications for social reproduction: while working-class students’ adoption of traditional HE values and practices suggests some leveling of the playing field, it means little if privileged students have moved the goalposts to maintain advantage. I apply Sigal Alon’s theory of effectively expanded inequality, whereby the privileged classes adapt to increased access and competition by deploying new strategies to secure their class position.","PeriodicalId":47434,"journal":{"name":"Critical Studies in Education","volume":"64 1","pages":"184 - 199"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Privileged careerists, working-class idealists: complicating the relationship of class, college values, and curricular choices\",\"authors\":\"Mary L. Scherer\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17508487.2022.2052736\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Research suggests that class-privileged students value learning for its own sake and study the liberal arts, while working-class students believe college is a means to an end. However, recent studies indicate that these associations are weakening. This paper investigates the link between class background, college values, and curricular choices, specifically course selection. In interviews with 68 working- and upper-middle-class liberal arts majors at two public universities in the northeastern U.S., nearly all students endorsed liberal education values (the belief that higher education is for personal edification) which they claimed to value above labor market outcomes. Working-class students chose courses in accordance with those values; however, upper-middle-class students chose courses for perceived career relevance or those rumored to be an ‘easy A’. Although it appears that college logics have flipped, I argue that they remain rooted in social class. I then consider implications for social reproduction: while working-class students’ adoption of traditional HE values and practices suggests some leveling of the playing field, it means little if privileged students have moved the goalposts to maintain advantage. I apply Sigal Alon’s theory of effectively expanded inequality, whereby the privileged classes adapt to increased access and competition by deploying new strategies to secure their class position.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47434,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Studies in Education\",\"volume\":\"64 1\",\"pages\":\"184 - 199\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Studies in Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2022.2052736\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Studies in Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2022.2052736","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

研究表明,特权阶级的学生重视学习本身,学习文科,而工薪阶层的学生则认为大学是达到目的的一种手段。然而,最近的研究表明,这些联系正在减弱。本文探讨了班级背景、大学价值观和课程选择之间的联系,特别是课程选择。在对美国东北部两所公立大学的68名工薪阶层和中上层阶级文科专业学生的采访中,几乎所有学生都赞同文科教育的价值观(认为高等教育是为了个人启蒙),他们认为这比劳动力市场的结果更重要。工人阶级的学生根据这些价值观选择课程;然而,中上层阶级的学生选择与职业相关的课程,或者那些传闻中“容易得A”的课程。虽然大学逻辑似乎发生了逆转,但我认为它们仍然植根于社会阶层。然后我考虑了对社会再生产的影响:虽然工薪阶层学生采用传统的高等教育价值观和做法表明了某种程度上的公平竞争环境,但如果特权学生为了保持优势而改变了门柱,这就没有什么意义了。我运用了Sigal Alon关于有效扩大不平等的理论,即特权阶级通过部署新的策略来确保他们的阶级地位,以适应机会和竞争的增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Privileged careerists, working-class idealists: complicating the relationship of class, college values, and curricular choices
ABSTRACT Research suggests that class-privileged students value learning for its own sake and study the liberal arts, while working-class students believe college is a means to an end. However, recent studies indicate that these associations are weakening. This paper investigates the link between class background, college values, and curricular choices, specifically course selection. In interviews with 68 working- and upper-middle-class liberal arts majors at two public universities in the northeastern U.S., nearly all students endorsed liberal education values (the belief that higher education is for personal edification) which they claimed to value above labor market outcomes. Working-class students chose courses in accordance with those values; however, upper-middle-class students chose courses for perceived career relevance or those rumored to be an ‘easy A’. Although it appears that college logics have flipped, I argue that they remain rooted in social class. I then consider implications for social reproduction: while working-class students’ adoption of traditional HE values and practices suggests some leveling of the playing field, it means little if privileged students have moved the goalposts to maintain advantage. I apply Sigal Alon’s theory of effectively expanded inequality, whereby the privileged classes adapt to increased access and competition by deploying new strategies to secure their class position.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Critical Studies in Education
Critical Studies in Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
10.10
自引率
5.10%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: Critical Studies in Education is one of the few international journals devoted to a critical sociology of education, although it welcomes submissions with a critical stance that draw on other disciplines (e.g. philosophy, social geography, history) in order to understand ''the social''. Two interests frame the journal’s critical approach to research: (1) who benefits (and who does not) from current and historical social arrangements in education and, (2) from the standpoint of the least advantaged, what can be done about inequitable arrangements. Informed by this approach, articles published in the journal draw on post-structural, feminist, postcolonial and other critical orientations to critique education systems and to identify alternatives for education policy, practice and research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信