Ethnic Hostility among Ethnic Majority and Minority Groups

More documents

Recommendations

Info

6. EXPLANATIONS FOR ETHNIC EDUCATIONAL INEQUALITY † 6.1 INTRODUCTION 6. Explanations for Ethnic Educational Inequality | Introduction In industrial societies, the association between social origin and educational attainment has been extensively studied. This association is substantial, but has declined in the Netherlands, as, for example, in France and in Sweden (Breen, 2005). Social origin infl uences not only the choices students make on the level of schooling they will attend, it also affects their fi eld of study choice. In the Netherlands, pupils’ chosen fi eld of study tends to resemble that of their father and is guided by the parents’ occupational domain (Van de Werfhorst, De Graaf, & Kraaykamp, 2001). Next to effects of social origin, research shows that two other ‘ascribed’ characteristics, sex and ethnicity, also affect inequality of educational opportunities. In most western countries, and the Netherlands is no exception, sex has become less decisive in determining the level of education that individuals attain (Van der Lippe & Van Doorne- Huiskes, 1995). Sex differentials have even reversed in Dutch society today: women are now more likely than men to enrol in higher education (Statistics Netherlands, 2007). However, sex differences are still pronounced in fi eld of study choices, with women less likely than men to choose science subjects (De Jong, Van Leeuwen, Roeleveld, & Webbing, 1998; Portegijs, Hermans, & Lalta, 2006). Ethnic origin, net of the effect of social origin, infl uences educational outcomes in most western countries (Alba et al., 1994; Ayalon & Shavit, 2004; Glick & White, 2003; see also Chapter 5). There are signs that ethnic inequality is diminishing in Dutch vocational education. However, ethnic inequality at higher levels of general education has remained stable or increased (see Chapter 5). When studying educational differentials based on social origin, sex and ethnicity, it is thus important to take into account not only differentials in levels of schooling attained (e.g. professional college versus university), but also differences in fi elds of study (e.g. science versus non-science). To explain educational decisions, a rational action model has been maturing over the years (Boudon, 1974; Breen & Goldthorpe, 1997; Davies, Heinesen, & Holm, 2002; Goldthorpe, 1996, 2000; Need & De Jong, 2000; Stocké, 2007; Van de Werfhorst & Andersen, 2005). Breen and Goldthorpe (1997) argue that students make instrumentally rational decisions infl uenced by several factors: (1) their subjective beliefs about the likelihood of success in different educational tracks (success probabilities), (2) the expected costs of remaining in school (study costs) and (3) their subjective beliefs about the utility of educational outcomes (educational returns). In Breen and Goldthorpe’s explanation, both primary and secondary effects are assumed to be at work. Primary effects operate through the association between children’s social origin and their average level of demonstrated ability. Secondary effects are the factors that infl uence the actual educational choices that pupils make, controlled for ability. In this study we test several † A slightly different version of this chapter is forthcoming in the European Sociological Review (Tolsma, Need, & De Jong, forthcoming). The study on which this chapter is based has been presented at the RC28 Spring Meeting in Nijmegen, the Netherlands (June 2006). 117
hypotheses derived from Breen and Goldthorpe’s model, in order to explain how social position, sex and ethnicity affect educational transitions. Recently, Stocké (2007) assessed the validity of the Breen-Goldthorpe model in a similar manner. He showed for Germany that higher class parents are more likely to believe that their offspring will be able to successfully complete a certain degree than lower class parents. To a large extent, this difference in expected success probabilities between higher and lower class parents can be explained by differences in their children’s ability. Surprisingly, differences between lower class children and higher class children in schooling level decisions could not be explained by the different expected success probabilities. Within the rational action framework ability is often used as a suffi cient indicator for differences in success probabilities; that is, differences in ability should explain how ascribed characteristics affect school choices just as well as students’ subjective probabilities of future academic success. Subjective probabilities are however likely to be also infl uenced by factors other than ability. Social strata may differ in their subjective success probabilities because they are more or less familiar with the educational system or because they vary in the importance they attach to effort relative to ability in determining school success (Breen, 1999). In this study we investigate the extent to which success probabilities, estimated subjectively by the students themselves, differ according to the ascribed characteristics of social origin, sex and ethnic background, and the extent to which ability is responsible for these differences. Furthermore, we test the extent to which students’ beliefs about their own chances of success in school explain the effect of social origin, sex and ethnic background on school decisions after higher secondary education. This research is innovative in three respects. First, the Breen and Goldthorpe model has been applied almost solely to the explanation of class differentials. Few scholars have attempted to test its predictions for sex-based inequality in educational opportunities (for exceptions, see Jonsson, 1999; Need & De Jong, 2000). We examine the extent to which the Breen and Goldthorpe model also applies to ethnic differentials in educational decisions. Second, Stocké (2007) examined the effect of parental expectations of their children’s future school success. We study entry into higher education and argue that at this transition point it is preferable to look at the expectations of the students themselves. Therefore, we assess the infl uence of students’ beliefs about their own probabilities of success. Third, the literature on fi eld choice is growing fast (see Gerber & Cheung, 2008 for an overview). However, we are not aware of any study in which success probabilities are incorporated in the explanatory model to predict fi eld choice. We analyse the school transition after higher secondary education, when students decide on the level at which they want to continue their educational career and their preferred fi eld of study.This leads to the following research questions: 1. To what extent are social origin, sex and ethnicity related to students’ expected probabilities of success for tracks in higher education that differ in level and fi eld of study? 2. To what extent does ability explain the relation between social origin, sex and ethnicity and these success probabilities? 3. To what extent do students’ expected success probabilities explain the effect of social origin, sex and ethnic background on choices of level and fi eld of study in higher education, next to ability? 118
Page 1 and 2:
ETHNIC HOSTILITY AMONG ETHNIC MAJOR
Page 3:
Promotores: prof. dr. N. D. de Graa
Page 6 and 7:
Science is so much more fun when yo
Page 8 and 9:
3.4.1 Opposition to ethnic intermar
Page 10:
8.3.1 Theoretical implications for
Page 14 and 15:
1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 NEW QUESTIONS 1
Page 16 and 17:
1. Introduction | New questions ski
Page 18 and 19:
1. Introduction | The setting of th
Page 20 and 21:
1. Introduction | Research question
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Table 1.1 Outline of empirical chap
Page 28:
1. Introduction | Notes 27
Page 32 and 33:
2. SOCIAL MOBILITY AND ETHNIC HOSTI
Page 34 and 35:
2. Social Mobility and Ethnic Hosti
Page 36 and 37:
social conformity favour more toler
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
e more important than the infl uenc
Page 42 and 43:
2.4 RESULTS 2. Social Mobility and
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48:
Page 51 and 52:
1987). Assessment of the importance
Page 53 and 54:
The actual ethnic competition withi
Page 55 and 56:
(Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Wagner e
Page 57 and 58:
seven categories: no-religion, Roma
Page 59 and 60:
the lower the opposition to ethnic
Page 61 and 62:
Table 3.1 Hierarchical linear inter
Page 63 and 64:
Table 3.2 Hierarchical linear inter
Page 65 and 66:
In model 8 we focus on the characte
Page 67 and 68: Table 3.3 Comparison of explanatory
Page 69 and 70: 3.5 CONCLUSIONS We observed a weak
Page 71 and 72: 9. The models presented in this cha
Page 74 and 75: 4. THE LOCAL LIVING ENVIRONMENT AND
Page 76 and 77: unit such as states or countries, w
Page 78 and 79: 4. The Local Living Environment and
Page 84 and 85: 4.4 RESULTS 4. The Local Living Env
Page 86 and 87: Table 4.2 continued Household compo
Page 92: 4. The Local Living Environment and
Page 96 and 97: 5. TRENDS IN ETHNIC EDUCATIONAL INE
Page 98 and 99: 5. Trends in Ethnic Educational Ine
Page 102 and 103: the worsening economic conditions o
Page 110 and 111: Table 5.3 continued Male (Female=re
Page 112 and 113: Table 5.4 continued Male (Female= r
Page 120 and 121: To answer our research questions, w
Page 122 and 123: 6. Explanations for Ethnic Educatio
Page 126 and 127: Table 6.1 continued Pre-university
Page 130 and 131: Table 6.2 continued Lower general t
Page 138 and 139: Model 4 includes both the ability m
Page 144 and 145: 7. EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT AND ETHNI
Page 146 and 147: among four ethnic minority groups i
Page 148 and 149: 7. Educational Attainment and Ethni
Page 152 and 153: Table 7.1 Summary of hypotheses Cor
Page 156 and 157: Table 7.2 continued Control variabl
Page 160 and 161: Table 7.3 continued 2nd gen. Turks
Page 164 and 165: Table 7.4 continued 2nd gen. Turks
Page 168:
7. Educational Attainment and Ethni
Page 172 and 173:
8. CONCLUSION 8.1 INTRODUCTION 8. C
Page 174 and 175:
8.2 QUESTIONS, RESULTS AND CONCLUSI
Page 176 and 177:
8. Conclusion | Questions, results
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
local living environments (on ethni
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
8. Conclusion | Theoretical implica
Page 192 and 193:
ethnic hosting threat contact / res
Page 194 and 195:
8. Conclusion | Retrospect and pros
Page 196 and 197:
8. Conclusion | Notes 195
Page 198 and 199:
APPENDIX Appendix 197
Page 200 and 201:
APPENDIX 2.2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
Page 202 and 203:
Appendix 2.3 continued Mobility typ
Page 204 and 205:
APPENDIX 2.4 TUTORIAL DIAGONAL MOBI
Page 206 and 207:
*********MEANS and OLS***********.
Page 208 and 209:
impact on depY. *The relative impac
Page 210 and 211:
Appendix *The impact of the destina
Page 212 and 213:
vector d = d1 to d6. vector p = p1
Page 214 and 215:
*and with constraints our model wou
Page 216 and 217:
Appendix 215
Page 218 and 219:
Appendix 3.1 continued father’s s
Page 220 and 221:
APPENDIX 3.3 OPPOSITION TO ETHNIC I
Page 222 and 223:
Appendix Appendix 4.1 continued Eco
Page 224 and 225:
Appendix APPENDIX 4.3 VARIANCE COMP
Page 226 and 227:
Appendix 5.1 continued Ethnicity N
Page 228 and 229:
APPENDIX 5.3 ROBUSTNESS OF ES ASSOC
Page 230 and 231:
Appendix APPENDIX 5.5 MULTI-NOMINAL
Page 232 and 233:
Appendix 7.1 continued 2nd gen. 2nd
Page 234 and 235:
Appendix 233
Page 236 and 237:
BIBLIOGRAPHY Bibliography Abu-Rayya
Page 238 and 239:
Bibliography Buijs, F. J., Demant,
Page 240 and 241:
Bibliography (pp. 345-383). Oxford:
Page 242 and 243:
Bibliography euthanasia, homosexual
Page 244 and 245:
Bibliography Onderzoek (ISEO). Mart
Page 246 and 247:
Bibliography Politics, 58(1), 41-72
Page 248 and 249:
Bibliography Worchel (Eds.), The so
Page 250 and 251:
Bibliography 249
Page 252 and 253:
Summary in Dutch / Nederlandstalige
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
CURRICULUM VITAE Curriculum Vitae J
Page 266 and 267:
ICS DISSERTATION SERIES ICS dissert
Page 268 and 269:
ICS dissertation series 37) Andreas
Page 270 and 271:
ICS dissertation series 76) Inge Si
Page 272 and 273:
ICS dissertation series 115) Martin
Page 274:
Why do some individuals express mor
show all

Ethnic Hostility among Ethnic Majority and Minority Groups

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?