Don't be too anxious - you can always submit a qualitative assessment.
The assessment will be posted to Sakai under the Tests/quizzes tab at the start of today's class.
You must take this assessment before the beginning of our next class.
Be mindful of the time - once you begin, you have 75 minutes to finish. There are readings and that may take you a little bit of time.
Please do not share any answers, but you may use your notes to answer the questions.
You are NOT allowed to skip questions.
There are many great courses in sociology!
EducationLawBusinessTech/Data ScienceHealthcareCommunity
Major in Sociology at Loyola- only req 33 hrsMinor in Sociology at Loyola- only req 18 hrs (6 classes)
School as a Socialization Agent in the U.S.
“Alternative High,” “Comprehensive High,” and “Elite Charter” each have distinct organizational structures and practices that cultivate unique school- level cultural meanings about success.
Alternative High operates on a non-traditional school model intended to improve the prospects of low-income students by both helping them fulfill college entrance requirements and pre- paring them for the working world in their areas of interest. The local cultural wisdom at Alternative High promotes what Nunn calls a “success- through-effort” perspective among students, in which students define success as achievable entirely through effort with little dependence on intelligence.
Comprehensive High is a more traditional high school that serves a large and ethnoracially diverse student body, and promotes a perspective that combines elements of “success-through-effort” with what Nunn calls “success-through- intelligence.” Effort is necessary but not sufficient for success, according to this school’s culture; one must also possess an innate intelligence that enables understanding of academic material.
Elite Charter is a high-performing, college-preparatory charter school serving a predominantly affluent student body where students are focused almost exclusively on academic performance that will earn them entrance to elite colleges. Here, intelligence is viewed as the foundation of success, and the “success-through-effort” element is modified into the idea of “initiative,” through which outstanding students can demonstrate their “passion” for learning.
The survey began with the instruction: “Think about the 2 friends you most often socialize with face-to-face. Do not include family members or boyfriends/girlfriends.” I chose the phrase “most often socialize with” to elicit the friendships most involved in the respondents’ non-work, recreational time. This did not ask the respondents’ to choose based on strength of bond or affection, but purely on frequency of shared social activities, in the present tense. Fischer’s (1982) comparison of ego network name generators found that joint social activities was the best predictor that the alter would be labeled a ‘friend,’ better than discussing personal matters, or any of the other several name generators he used. The specification “face-to-face” discouraged respondents from listing long-distance confidants or other people who were outside of their regular social activities. Though non-local ties can be very strong, and important in many ways, they cannot provide many types of support that local ties can (e.g. child-care), cannot participate in most physical social events (dinners, parties, etc.) and are thus much less likely to have ties to other members of the respondents’ local social networks (Martin and Yeung 2006), or introduce new alters. The focus on local friendship ties in this study is an effort to measure the characteristics of the cores of the non-kin informal social networks that respondents are embedded within
Tight-knitters have one densely woven friendship group in which nearly all their friends are friends with one another.... Most tight-knitters were students of color who found the social support of their network helpful in navigating a predominantly White campus. Some tight-knitters had friendship networks that helped them academically in multiple ways. Tight-knit networks, however, did not always pull students up academically. They pulled some tight-knitters down, helping to reproduce race- and class-based inequalities. About half of the 22 tight-knitters in my sample were ... surrounded by friends who pulled them away from academics. Nearly all students discussed friends distracting them from academics, but for lower-achieving tight-knitters who did not graduate from MU or who graduated but with low GPAs and in more than four years, friends were a constant distraction. All behaviors—negative and positive—were quite contagious within tight-knit networks. Consequently, all tight-knitters who described their friends as providing academic support and motivation graduated; only half of the tight-knitters who felt they lacked this support graduated.
Compartmentalizers’ friends form two to four clusters, where friends know each other within clusters but rarely across them. Compartmentalized networks look like a bow-tie, with distinct clusters of friends. Students’ friends within each of the 2-4 clusters were connected to each other, but friends were not connected across clusters. Like Betsy, most compartmentalizers were White and middle-class. They typically had one socially oriented cluster and one academically oriented cluster. She felt her two clusters of friends enabled her to balance schoolwork and friendly fun, and she graduated in four years. Students with more than two clusters of friends felt pressure—on their time and identity—in keeping up with multiple friendship groups. The clusters provided a sense of belonging, but maintaining ties can be demanding, and these demands escalated with each additional cluster. All compartmentalizers had separate academic and social clusters of friends. In general, compartmentalizers came from more advantaged backgrounds, experienced greater ease on campus, and succeeded in college with less support from friends as compared to those with other network types. Friendships among students from more advantaged backgrounds helped to reproduce their advantages.
Samplers make a friend or two from a variety of places, but the friends remain unconnected to each other. Students of color frequently described experiencing race-based isolation on campus regardless of their network type; samplers, however, remained isolated. They rarely discussed isolating experiences with friends, and samplers were ambivalent at best about whether their friends provided social support or whether they needed social support. Samplers are academically successful in spite of their friends. Their friends provide little academic help or engagement, but they don’t pull the samplers down academically either. Negative behaviors that were contagious within tight-knitters’ networks did not spread within samplers’ networks due to lack of ties among friends. In other words, their network structure shielded samplers from friends’ negative influences. While samplers demonstrate that friends are not necessary for academic success, one can’t help but wonder if they might be even more successful if they allowed or encouraged their friends to become friends with academic benefits.
We find strong evidence that students adjust their preferences to those of their friends (friend influence). Moreover, girls tend to retain their STEM preferences when other girls in their classroom also like STEM (peer exposure). We conclude that these mechanisms amplify preexisting preferences and thereby contribute to the observed dramatic widening of the STEM gender gap....Homophily, the tendency for friends to be similar in multiple regards (e.g., in their gender or sex category, age, attitudes, and cultural taste) is widely documented (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook 2001). This can be due to friend selection, that is, the tendency to befriend others who are similar, but, in the case of changeable characteristics, it can also be due to social influence....First, both boys and girls are influenced to like what their friends like. Because students mostly have same-sex friends, gender-specific tendencies of influence will emerge. Boys, who have higher probabilities to like STEM to begin with (in our observed time period), are likely to be further influenced toward STEM because their friends are likely to be boys, who are, again, more likely to have pre-existing STEM preferences. Girls, having lower probabilities to like STEM already, are likely further influenced by other girls, who are also less likely to prefer STEM. However, these are just general tendencies. Depending on the particular friends one might have, individual implications can also be different (e.g., cases where girls are friends with more boys than with girls, or with girls who like STEM).Second, regarding STEM subjects, other girls’ preferences in the classroom matter. Having other female students in a class who prefer STEM can protect girls from being discouraged from STEM subjects. This implies that along with friends’ subject preferences, the negotiation of gender politics in the classroom is also important for girls’ STEM preferences. Our findings suggest the STEM pipeline model should be conceived as a social pipeline model, in which effects of peer exposure and friend influence are considered important factors in female dropout from STEM careers.
Based on eight years of intensive insider participant observation in their own children's community, Peter and Patti Adler discuss the vital components of the lives of preadolescents, popularity, friendships, cliques, social status, social isolation, loyalty, bullying, boy-girl relationships, and afterschool activities. They describe how friendships shift and change, how people are drawn into groups and excluded from them, how clique leaders maintain their power and popularity, and how individuals' social experiences and feelings about themselves differ from the top of the pecking order to the bottom. In so doing, the Adlers focus their attention on the peer culture of the children themselves and the way this culture extracts and modifies elements from adult culture. Children's peer culture, as it is nourished in those spaces where grown-ups cannot penetrate, stands between individual children and the larger adult society. As such, it is a mediator and shaper, influencing the way children collectively interpret their surroundings and deal with the common problems they face.
As students enter, please review this NY Magazine piece about Carolyn Dweck's book, Mindset.
Today's Lesson:
Leave It to Beaver was not a documentary, a man’s home has never been his castle, the ‘male breadwinner marriage’ is the least traditional family in history, and rape and sexual assault were far higher in the 1970s than they are today. In The Way We Never Were, acclaimed historian Stephanie Coontz provides a myth-shattering examination of two centuries of the American family, sweeping away misconceptions about the past that cloud current debates about domestic life. The 1950s do not present a workable model of how to conduct our personal lives today, Coontz argues, and neither does any other era from our cultural past. This revised edition includes a new introduction and epilogue, looking at what has and has not changed since the original publication in 1992, and exploring how the clash between growing gender equality and rising economic inequality is reshaping family life, marriage, and male-female relationships in our modern era.
Americans’ lives at home are changing. Following a decades-long trend, just half of U.S. adults were married in 2015, down from 70% in 1950. As marriage has declined, the number in cohabiting relationships (living with an unmarried partner) rose 29% between 2007 and 2016, from 14 million to 18 million. The increase was especially large among those ages 50 and older: 75% in the same period. The “gray divorce” rate – divorces among those 50 and older – roughly doubled between 1990 and 2015.
Also, a record number of Americans (nearly 61 million in 2014) were living in multigenerational households, that is, households that include two or more adult generations or grandparents and grandchildren. Growing racial and ethnic diversity in the U.S. helps explain some of the rise in multigenerational living. The Asian and Hispanic populations overall are growing more rapidly than the white population, and those groups are more likely than whites to live in multigenerational family households.
Here is a graph from Phil Cohen showing different types of households by decade 1900-2017:
5. What is one conclusion that can you make from the graph?
Americans are more accepting of the changing structures than they have ever been. From the Pew:
As family structures change in U.S., a growing share of Americans say it makes no difference
The American family is changing in many ways: Cohabitation is on the rise, more adults are delaying or forgoing marriage, a growing share of children are living with an unmarried parent, and same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states. Amid these changes, three-in-ten U.S. adults think it’s a good thing that there is growing variety in the types of family arrangements people live in, while about half as many (16%) say this is a bad thing. The largest share (45%) don’t think it makes a difference, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in June 2019.
