The Dynamics of Social Reproduction: How Class Works at a State College and Elite Private College^†

^†This is a longer and revised paper based on a presentation at the “How Class Works” Conference, June 10, 2006, State University of New York at Stony Brook. I wish to thank the journal Editor and the several anonymous reviewers for their suggestions.

Abstract

This article examine how students from different class backgrounds at vastly different colleges interpret the role of social class in their past and future. It begins with a review of previous research findings based on freshmen and sophomore year interviews (2002–2004) with three groups of students: low income students at a state college; low income students at an elite private college (Little Ivy), and affluent students at the same elite private college. During a period of relative quiescence on college campuses, all three groups of students tended to look at their own lives in individualistic, non-structural ways, and generally downplayed the role of their own class backgrounds. Many of the students were interviewed again during their senior year to determine what, if any, changes had occurred in their overall outlook. Both groups of students at Little Ivy had become less politically progressive and active as they approached graduation; State College students had verbally moved to the Left, but without corresponding activism. Occupational goals for each of the three groups differed. The affluent students anticipated positions with the most power and prestige, while the State College students aimed for entry and middle level statuses. Not surprisingly, the low income Little Ivy students expected to obtain positions below their affluent peers, but higher than the State College students. The meaning of these findings in the context of the current historical period and the power of social reproduction is discussed.

^†This is a longer and revised paper based on a presentation at the “How Class Works” Conference, June 10, 2006, State University of New York at Stony Brook. I wish to thank the journal Editor and the several anonymous reviewers for their suggestions.

Maynard Seider teaches sociology at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts where he has just completed a seven year stint as chapter president of the faculty union, part of the Massachusetts State College Association. He is currently collaborating on a film project examining globalization and its impact on a New England mill town.

Notes

^†This is a longer and revised paper based on a presentation at the “How Class Works” Conference, June 10, 2006, State University of New York at Stony Brook. I wish to thank the journal Editor and the several anonymous reviewers for their suggestions.

1. All but one of the State College students came from families earning less than $50,000 a year and most of their parents had not completed college. The lower income Little Ivy students all received financial aid and came from families whose education and income levels stood only slightly higher than the State College students. By contrast, the affluent students came from families averaging over $200,000 in annual income and all their parents not only had college degrees, but also a majority had finished graduate school. While all three samples were equally divided by gender, the sample sizes were too small to detect gender differences. (For further information on the three samples, see Seider & Aries, 2004; Aries & Seider, 2005, 2007)

2. That is, the skills and ability that “provide access to scarce rewards” (Lareau & Weininger, 2003, p. 587). The more affluent students have grown up knowing how to prepare themselves for an elite college education, which high school courses to take, how to master the interview process, and how to seek out and use expert SAT coaching. Further, they grew up in homes where parents and siblings spoke with the very same vocabulary characterizing the SAT tests. While the “non-affluent” students lacked much of that background, they spend part of their first year at Little Ivy learning how the system works, and thus gain a key chunk of “cultural capital.”

3. An all-encompassing term referring to the people one knows and the connections one has that can lead to admission to a prestigious school, desirable job, or other “scarce” resources (Bourdieu, 1977).

4. That was the case during the first two sets of interviews. By his senior year, Stephen had decided to switch from teaching to law school.

5. See Collins and Yeskel (2005) for historical data on the rising level of both income and wealth inequality.

6. Bowles and Gintis (1976) presented the early classic research on higher education and social reproduction. (For recent reviews of the field, see Bowles & Gintis, 2003; Seider, 2004; Swartz, 2003.)

7. Student names and unique identifying characteristics have been changed to protect their confidentiality.

8. Through an oversight, I didn't note that Jon had listed a mixed ancestry (White and Hispanic) in the biographical form he filled out his freshman year. His surname, accent, and physical appearance did not indicate an Hispanic background. Jon's mother is Mexican and he speaks fluent Spanish. When we discussed his background his senior year he said, “It doesn't feel like I am either one, Hispanic or White. I see myself right in the middle in my own kind of category.”

9. Outside of these tendencies, one student had no interest in politics or activism, a position she held during her four year college career; another maintained a conservative political ideology during his four years, but moved away from an earlier campus activism; and a third wanted to work for the Federal government, but showed very little interest in politics, on or off campus.

10. Upper-class students recognized their privilege, appreciated it and, while they would not choose to be born in a poorer family, saw the need to give something back to the society.

11. “Affirmative Action” for legacies has been a hotly contested topic at Little Ivy as it has been at other elite private colleges and universities. Research based on a study of 13 very selective schools indicates that legacy status increases an applicant's chances by some 20%, “even when controlling for SAT scores, race, income, parental income, early application, and other variables” (Karabel, 2005, p. 672).

12. Both groups at Little Ivy tended to come from small families, with students being either only children or having only one other sibling. State College students tended to have more siblings. The smaller family size may well have been a factor in aiding the less affluent Little Ivy students in their educational journey as they would have been able to receive more attention and “capital” from their parents.