Microsoft Word - FULL

STEVEN BRINT

THINKING ABOUT SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES AS

SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS

An Intellectual Self-Portrait

EARLY LIFE

I was born in Albuquerque, NM in 1951. My father, one of the first computer

systems analysts, worked in the defense industry at Sandia Laboratories. My mother

raised three boys and acted in local theater. Both of my parents were Jewish but

secular by orientation, particularly my father. They were politically liberal and

intellectually oriented. When I told my parents at age 9 that I had no intention to

continue with Sunday school, my mother agreed as long as I promised to read an

illustrated treatise on the world’s major religions. My paternal grandfather was a

self-employed plumber who had migrated to the United States as a young man and

had a fourth grade education. My maternal grandfather, also an immigrant, owned

three western wear stores in New Mexico. My mother’s sister, however, had married

into a wealthy family in New York. I consequently developed a heightened sense of

status and class differences from an early age, and an appreciation for the working

class greatly influenced by my creative and free-thinking paternal grandfather.

I played football and wrestled as an adolescent. I also read obsessively. Vance

Packard and J.D. Salinger were particular favorites. After my parents’ divorce, my

mother remarried and we moved to suburban Kansas City. I was one of the few who

left Kansas for college. At Berkeley, I was an editor and columnist on the Daily Cal

and captained a championship intramural softball team. I had the experience of

studying with Troy Duster, Philippe Nonet, Philip Selznick, and Neil Smelser. At

Troy’s home, jazz was on and the easel was up, while, speaking hardly a word, he

let the undergraduates in his senior seminar struggle with one another over the works

of theorists like Norman O. Brown and Herbert Marcuse. I wrote a senior essay

entitled “A Critique of Critical Theory.”

I attended graduate school at Harvard, where I studied with Ann Swidler, James

A. Davis, and Daniel Bell. I became engaged with educational studies in the later

1970s as a research assistant for Jerome Karabel, who had, obtained a large grant

from the National Institute of Education to study “power and ideology in higher

education.” Karabel ran an evening seminar in which we discussed books of

theoretical significance that bore on educational studies. Here I encountered works

by Bourdieu, Bowles and Gintis, Collins, Konrad and Szelenyi, Jencks, Meyer and

Rowan, Sarfatti Larson, and many others. Those who attended the seminar included

Paul DiMaggio, Kevin Dougherty, David Karen, Katherine McClelland, David

Stark, David Swartz, and Michael Useem. My dissertation, “Stirrings of an

THINKING ABOUT SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES AS SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Oppositional Elite?” written under the supervision of Daniel Bell and James Davis,

used survey data to analyze the plausibility of the various “new-class” theories that

were circulating at the time.

INTELLECTUAL ORIENTATION

I have worked at the intersection of the sociology of education, the sociology of the

professions, and the study of middle-class politics. In my work on schooling, I have

taken the explicit purposes of schooling (cultural transmission, socialization, and

talent identification) more seriously than most sociologists, but I have historicized

them, subjected them to critical analysis, and rooted them in political contestation. I

have identified the key features of schools and universities as social structures, while

simultaneously examining them as objects of contestation influenced by powerful

external actors who attempt to use them to advance new forms of organization that

reflect their major constituencies’ interests and ideals. I have “frozen” schools and

universities as crystallized social structures, and I have watched them “flow” over

time under the influence of contending forces. My approach reflects the

characteristic Weberian interests in the causes of transformations in social

organization and the characterization of the crystallized structures that emerge from

these transformations. Like Weber, I have emphasized the ideal and material

interests of organizational managers as much as those of powerful external actors.

Much of my work has been motivated by skepticism toward what I regarded as

debatable views of intellectuals and policy makers. Some has been motivated by a

search for better data with which to answer questions in which I became interested.

U.S. TWO-YEAR COLLEGES

In The Diverted Dream (1989), Karabel and I examined a new type of educational

organization, the two-year junior (later community) college, founded for the first

time in 1900. We emphasized that the origins of the junior college reflected the

progressive American ideology of opportunity, but its founding was sponsored by

leading university presidents and deans who saw the new colleges as a way to create

a bulwark between their own institutions and the large numbers of under-prepared

students they feared would seek admission. We also focused on the interests of the

small band of junior college specialists who sought to escape the sense of

subordinate status they experienced by adopting a new identity as the leading

provider of occupationally-relevant post-secondary education. We emphasized the

subsequent assembly of a powerful coalition of supporters for the new colleges’

mission, led by the Kellogg Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, and the Nixon

Administration. We developed a framework in which the interests of powerful social

actors in the colleges’ environment is refracted through the lens of managerial

interests in developing a distinctive status and identity. Community colleges are the

greatest success story of U.S. higher education in the 20

century, judging by the

share of post-secondary students they enrolled. We accounted for this success by

emphasizing their organizational assets: geographical closeness to most students,

low cost, dual tracks (transfer and occupational), and the development of community

support through offering adult education and avocational courses. We also

emphasized that the institutional success of the community colleges was built on a

massive failure: most students failed to complete any degree. We attributed these

STEVEN BRINT

failures to the students’ lack of preparation for college work, the colleges’ low levels

of student support services, and the proliferation of pathways through the colleges.

In subsequent work on the origins and transformation of community colleges

(toward becoming more vocationally oriented institutions) (Brint and Karabel 1991),

we criticized neo-institutional theories of schooling for failing to appreciate the role

of powerful influences in the environment on the founding and transformations of

educational institutions. We also criticized the neo-institutionalists’ failure to take

managerial interests into account. We used the community college case to offer

generalizations about the environmental opportunities and organizational asset bases

that allowed for the successful entry of new forms into established educational

systems. In a later work of self-reflection (Brint 2003), I regretted the tendency in

The Diverted Dream to equate transfer with better labor market opportunities,

acknowledging that some occupational programs, such as nursing and electronics

technology, showed strong labor market outcomes. I also emphasized more than we

had originally the role of political progressivism as an element in the founding of

the first junior colleges. At the same time, I observed that conditions for young

people entering community colleges had deteriorated in several respects following

the publication of The Diverted Dream, given the evidence that remedial courses

were growing but with only limited success and the large number of students who

were unable to find the classes they needed to make timely progress to their degrees.

U.S. FOUR-YEAR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

In The Ends of Knowledge, now nearing completion, I examine organizational and

cultural change in U.S. four-year colleges and universities between 1980 and 2015.

The book focuses on the consequences and potentialities of expansion. In human

systems, I argue that growth is misconceived as simply a flow, a magnification, or a

flowering. It typically brings benefits, to be sure, and these benefits are unequally

distributed. To understand growth fully it is important to see that it occurs within

systems of interaction. That means that it is channelled. Growth follows along

previously structured paths and it occurs in contexts that give it shape. That means

also that it creates new openings. It permits the possibility of new organizational

forms built by educational entrepreneurs who find that they can compete

successfully with existing organizations. It causes pooling of common sentiment. It

creates new interest groups and it motivates other groups to oppose their assertions.

Under conditions of scarcity and preference, it creates fissuring of structures. It

expands fissures within systems and creates divergent trajectories. It encourages

concentrations and dilutions. Growth stimulates many of those who are newly

incorporated to great effort, while at the same time risking lower levels of

performance on average. It causes the development of outlets. It creates and

legitimates safe zones for those who cannot succeed on the educational terms of the

system, bringing the margins closer to the center and even, at times, giving the

“margins” precedence over the center. It encourages the construction of barriers. It

promotes the development of new forms of academic differentiation and higher

levels of credentialing as protection against the dilution of performance norms. And

it creates competition among potential regulators. It commands the attention of the

powerful, and it creates interests among some with vision and resources to direct its

power toward ends they identify as in the public interest.

THINKING ABOUT SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES AS SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Under the urging of a growth coalition led by the major philanthropies and the

White House, I argue that the higher education industry is moving toward complete

market penetration. Unlike many consumer product industries in which adaptive

upgrading of products is required for firms to stay in business over the long run,

higher education can pursue market penetration without adaptive upgrading simply

by setting up incomparable quality levels through selective admissions and granting

baccalaureates to those whose performance would not pass muster in the better

secondary schools. In the context of selective admissions and no industrywide

standards for baccalaureate level performance, the paradox of market penetration is

that it provides real opportunity for many who would otherwise be excluded, while

at the same time ensuring that the average college degree counts for less and less

with respect to the cognitive side of human capital development.

I emphasize the development of first-generation students as a key status group in the

press for complete market penetration. Where financial aid is available, upwardly

mobile first-generation college students, most of them from low-income

backgrounds, are the human power source driving market penetration. They have

the pride of coming from families that overcame obstacles to achieve the American

dream and the motivation to prove their worth against those who doubt it. They are

the natural audience for the rhetoric of opportunity and the natural repository for

resentment against social exclusions. Social incorporation is essential to the

teleology of market penetration. It therefore should come as no surprise that a

harmony of interests exists between college and foundation presidents who take up

the values of inclusion and diversity and the students whose persistence will be

required to realize the college completion agenda. Although built on the rhetoric of

opportunity, the higher education system continues to yield disproportionate benefits

to those who are well prepared by family and prior school background to succeed at

the levels that count. The paradox of the first-generation is that students

misrecognize the endpoint of the system as opportunity and degree attainment, rather

than market penetration, and consequently run the risk of a bitter awakening when

the futures that seem to beckon materialize in a disproportionate way for the already

advantaged.

I emphasize the development of a mass intellectual and professional stratum. A

larger undergraduate population produces a larger graduate population, both because

more graduate students are needed to staff undergraduate sections, and because

undergraduates who want to stand out in labor markets in which the baccalaureate

has become normative without standing for have little choice but to pursue higher

level degrees. These higher level degrees, particularly the first professional degrees

and the doctorate create something that is truly new human society, a mass of highly

educated people. These people are trained to read the literatures in their fields, to

consider empirical evidence, and to reason systematically through problems and are

absorbed not just in universities, but also in a wide range of institutions in society.

Some of these people become idea and knowledge generators in their own right.

Universities consequently are no longer the “service stations” for society, as Kerr

(1963) viewed them. Instead the conventions of research permeate and universities

become one center of ideas and knowledge generation among others. This becomes

increasingly true as tenure track positions in colleges and universities fail to keep

pace with the growth of undergraduate enrollments, and more doctoral degree

recipients seek employment outside the university. Universities continue to generate

many ideas and inventions, but they also become more a partner than a source. Many

STEVEN BRINT

ideas and inventions are jointly produced by research workers inside and outside the

university. Equally, ideas that are generated outside of the university enter

universities for refining and testing. In this respect the university becomes more

often a reviser and adjudicator of ideas and less often a source.

I emphasize the phenomenon of dynamism at the top and industrialization at the

bottom of the system. The resources available to the top 30 U.S. research universities

have allowed them to extend the distance between themselves and the remaining

7,000 colleges and universities in the country. Drawing on large endowments,

extraordinary grant funding, and high tuition charges, the top of the system is

remarkably productive, both in its research accomplishments and in the educational

opportunities it provides. One measure of leadership dynamics can be found in the

production of influential articles, which have become more concentrated over time.

A new model of the “creative” type of man is developing at these institutions, in

business and engineering as much as in design and the arts. Students have the

opportunity at MIT to install workshops in their dormitory rooms, so that they can

build and tinker all night, if they wish, and students at Stanford can work on projects

with professors whose innovations launched the digital revolution. If they have good

ideas to bring to market, they will have access to venture capital funds to pursue

them. By contrast, with limited funds for the employment of instructors and graders,

the middle and bottom of the system has become increasingly mechanized. In some

public institutions, students choose from among dozens of fully online degree and

certificate programs and hundreds of individual online classes. Even those that are

taught face-to-face often feature assessments based on machine-graded

examinations. I argue that changes in the stratification structure of U.S. higher

education in these ways mirror changes in the opportunity structure of American

society, where the top tenth of one percent of households, by recent estimates, own

twenty-two percent of the country’s wealth (Saez and Zucman 2014).

I emphasize disciplinary divergence. When college going was rare, the prestige

of the disciplines mattered little. Science and engineering were prestigious because

of their association with industrial and technological progress, but the humanities

were also prestigious because of their association with wealth and cultivation. The

arrival of mass higher education challenged and finally eroded that rough equality.

Academic status became associated with perceptions of rigor and capacities for

abstraction. Mathematics and physics stood atop of this hierarchy, with only

economics and philosophy from the social sciences and humanities ranking high. A

parallel hierarchy of labor market opportunities undoubtedly impressed students and

their parents more—with engineering and business students having the best chance

at good salaries, followed by those in physical and life sciences, the social sciences,

the humanities and the arts, and, finally, education and human services. These

hierarchies are the result not only of the relative demand for educated labor, but also

the elimination of many prospective majors from the more advantaged quantitative

fields. While providing a relatively stable prestige order, useful to university

administrators in the allocation of resources, the hierarchy and the elimination

process also created awkward imbalances in university life, including the reliance of

universities on non-quantitative fields to provide “soft landing” spots more than

rigorous training requirements. Faculty members in non-quantitative fields taught

on average more for lower pay, confronted less motivated students, and, perhaps for

these reasons, also required less from their students. Given their distinctive role

within the university, their still-healthy enrollments, and the continuing support they

THINKING ABOUT SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES AS SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS

receive from cultural institutions, it would be a mistake to see the humanities as an

endangered species. However, humanities fields with few majors are endangered.

The disciplinary hierarchy has been reinforced by professional accreditors and

relative deprivation. Engineering and business accreditors are requiring that students

develop social as well as technical skills, reducing long-standing advantages of the

humanities and social sciences. By contrast, large numbers of students and faculty

in the humanities and interpretive social sciences fields identify with the

dispossessed whose condition mirrors their own.

I also emphasize the drift upward of policy making authority. The federal

government has of course been an important actor in U.S. higher education since the

time of the Morrill Act. Research universities could not perform their work without

federal funding for research, and neither colleges nor universities would survive

without the billions of dollars provided by the federal government in Pell grants,

guaranteed student loans and indirectly through tax benefits for parents whose

students attend college. Prior to the 1990s, the system was marked by

decentralization, with peer review important in the distribution of grants and

financial aid awarded to students to use as they saw fit. Since the 1990s, a new more

activist regulatory and policy environment has begun to emerge. The major

philanthropies have been the leaders of the movement toward prescriptive

centralization guided by the college completion agenda. The Obama Administration

has signaled its intention to play a more directive role as well. The Administration’s

plan centered on a ratings system that would compare colleges to one another on the

measures the Administration identified as important to American families, including

average tuition costs, graduation rates, and average amount of debt at graduation.

Prescriptive centralization can create greater focus on meeting important national

goals, but it risks the vitality that comes from a decentralized system upholding a

wide variety of values. The State is understandably concerned with efficiency, but

good education is often not particularly efficient. It requires trial and error, deeper

digging, multiple drafts, and contestation.

THE COLLEGES & UNIVERSITIES 2000 PROJECT

The Ends of Knowledge was influenced by papers my research group and I produced

in the years 2000-2014 with the support of foundation and NSF funding. During this

time, the Colleges & Universities 2000 Project, as I called it, constructed two large

databases: the Institutional Data Archive on American Higher Education (IDA) and

the College Catalog Study Database (CCS). We also constructed a database on the

consequences of the Great Recession for U.S. higher education based on coding of

reports found in LexisNexis for a sample of more than 300 colleges and universities.

These databases became important sources for our work on U.S. higher education.

We found a technique for identifying the latent structure of the higher education

field through cluster analysis of institutional characteristics, with findings that

departed from the accepted view promulgated by the Carnegie Classification. We

found the key structural characteristics to be selectivity, control, and highest degree

awarded. We identified seven primary organizational locations in the system and

showed that college and university presidents chose as reference institutions those

in the same structural location. We also showed that aspirations to move up the

hierarchy were common among the higher enrollment and financially stronger

institutions in each segment. Upwardly mobile public institutions wanted to offer

STEVEN BRINT

higher level degrees and upwardly mobile private institutions to become more

selective (Brint, Riddle, and Hanneman 2006).

We studied curricula extensively. We found that the center of gravity in U.S.

higher education since the 1930s has been occupational-professional education, with

a brief reversion to emphasis on arts and sciences in the 1960s (Brint et al. 2005).

Our studies led us to develop many reasons to criticize neo-institutional theories of

the convergence of organizational structures to mimic dominant models. We found

that multiple models of general education have been supported by legislative fiat,

informal networks, or long-standing conventions (Brint et al. 2011). Similarly, we

found that interdisciplinary programs have been much more popular at liberal arts

oriented institutions, larger institutions, and high-status institutions than elsewhere

in the system (Brint et al. 2009). At the same time, we found that interdisciplinary

research and curricula were growing moderately in popularity, influenced by the

interests of the federal government in solving major problems, the interests of

activists scattered across humanities and social science fields in studying

marginalized populations, and the interests of organizational managers who excelled

in aggregating resources and valued leverage against the traditionalism of academic

departments (Brint 2005). Large and high-status organizations have been much more

likely than others to add newly emerging academic fields, such as neuroscience and

international business (Brint et al. 2011), and they have been much more likely to

protect declining liberal arts fields (Brint et al. 2012). The capacity for adaptation

that comes from high enrollments and robust finances allow some institutions to

innovate without withdrawing from traditional fields. The opposite is true for low-

capacity institutions. Mission also matters: liberal arts oriented institutions tend to

stay that way; they are reluctant to add occupational fields or to withdraw from

traditional arts and sciences fields (Brint et al. 2005; Brint et al. 2012). Public

institutions also show distinctive missions; unlike privates they are more interested

in developing specialists in a broad range of fields than in cutting edge creative work

in a smaller number of fields (Brint 2005). They have inherited a strong interest in

applied fields that serve society, and they have much greater interest in making social

contributions through providing opportunities to low-income populations (Brint

2007). Nor have we seen convergence in decision-making structures; instead, based

on accounts of a sample of senior leaders surveyed in 2001 and 2012, we have seen

some growth in the number of decisions in which managers only are involved, but

also expansion of the number of actors involved in most forms of academic decision

making (Apkarian et al. 2014).

We found fewer reasons to be skeptical about the role of market forces in U.S.

higher education. We found that patterns of donor support and changing student

interests do affect the growth and decline of academic fields. However, changes in

labor market conditions and government funding priorities did not show effects on

the rise and fall of academic fields. The pattern of progressive enclosure of labor

market opportunities in professional and managerial occupations, particularly in

those occupations in which fewer than 80 percent but more than half of workers had

college degrees, were as important as any of the market forces we studied (Brint et

al. 2013).

THINKING ABOUT SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES AS SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS

STUDENT CULTURE AND TEACHING REFORM

Another strand of work that contributed to The Ends of Knowledge grew out of

survey analyses of the student experience through my involvement as a faculty

associate at the Center for Studies in Higher Education at UC Berkeley. Here I

served with my colleagues John Douglass and Gregg Thomson as a principal

researcher on the UC Undergraduate Experiences Survey (UCUES) and later as a

principal researcher on the Student Experience in the Research University (SERU)

Survey and Consortium. The latter grew out of UCUES and included some two

dozen major public research universities and nearly a dozen international partners.

My research using these data initially focused on disciplinary differences. Working

with Allison M. Cantwell and Robert A. Hanneman, I found important differences

in cultures of engagement between science and engineering fields and humanities

and social science fields. Success for students in science and engineering was

associated net of covariates with focus on improving quantitative skills, studying

with and helping others, conscientious attendance, and it was rooted in a high value

placed on prestigious and well-paying jobs. Success for students in humanities and

social science fields was, by contrast, associated, net of covariates, with frequent

participation in class, asking “insightful” questions, interaction with professors, and

other measures of overt interest in class materials. The difference was between

group oriented grinds and individualistic enthusiasts (Brint, Cantwell, and

Hanneman 2008). A subsequent study explored differences between the disciplines

in work effort, conscientiousness, and analytical and critical thinking. Science and

engineering disciplines scored high on work effort (as measured by hours spent

studying and attending class). They also scored higher on measures of

conscientiousness. We expected the humanities and social sciences to shine on our

measures of analytical and critical thinking, but that turned out not to be the case.

Instead, we found few disciplinary differences on these measures (Brint, Cantwell,

and Saxena 2012).

At the same time, from my experiences in the lecture hall, I had developed

concerns about the average level of students’ academic engagement and

competence. Cantwell and I studied time use in the University of California and

found that students were spending more than 40 hours a week on average in social

and recreational activities but only 26-27 hours a week on study and attending class.

Women, students who had achieved high GPAs, and science and engineering

students were more likely to spend longer hours in study (Brint and Cantwell 2010).

In a subsequent study, we developed a theory of student disengagement and studied

the composition of disengaged student populations. Using the UCUES instrument,

we found that one-quarter of students said they rarely if ever participated in class or

communicated with their professors and one-fifth of students said they worked on

their studies 18 hours or less each week and completed 50 percent or less of assigned

reading (Brint and Cantwell 2014). These findings led me to wonder whether

students were learning as much or more in their co-curricular involvements in

student clubs and organizations. I added several questions to the SERU survey as

a way to explore this issue and am currently engaged in analyzing these data. I have

come to suspect that for most residential college students, the physical campus

experience may be more valuable for the co-curricular learning it fosters than for the

stimulation it offers in the classroom. This of course has important implications for

the future of physical campuses and the substitutability of online instruction for the

physical campus experience. Sadly, the results of this work add to a growing list of

STEVEN BRINT

research, beginning with Derek Bok’s Our Underachieving Colleges (2006),

questioning the extent to which U.S. research universities are successful as teaching

and learning institutions.

The obverse side of this interest in student culture has been an interest in the

prospects for the reform of teaching. I described the rise of “the new progressivism”

in college teaching based on project based learning and ample opportunities for

interactive engagement. I questioned whether the new progressivism was typically

accompanied by enough rigor to lead to improved subject matter mastery. (This

skepticism seems to have been warranted, judging from the widely-read work of

Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa on “limited learning” in college.) I discussed the

sources of decline in requirements outside of quantitative fields, pointing to

deteriorating labor market prospects in interpretive disciplines, the interests of

higher education senior leaders in maintaining and expanding enrollments, and the

concerns of many faculty members not to discourage under-prepared students from

low-income backgrounds. In the same piece, I questioned whether the

accountability movement would accomplish much to change these dynamics. I

emphasized that most faculty members treated accountability requirements as

compliance make-work and failed to see their relevance to student achievement. In

addition, some faculty members resented the intrusion of external agencies into the

classroom and feared that the higher education accountability movement would lead

to the same types of one-size-fits-all thinking evident in K-12 accountability

movements with similar levels of erosion of professional judgment (Brint 2011). (I

had previously studied the consequences of K-12 accountability on teachers’ sense

of professionalism in a study of five Southern California school districts. See Brint

and Teele 2008.)

REFORMING UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION: PRACTICAL ACTIVITIES

I have used the results of my research and thinking on undergraduate teaching and

learning in practical activities as an educational reformer. As vice provost for

undergraduate education, I launched a number of initiatives to improve teaching and

learning on my University of California campus at Riverside. I developed a

philosophy that involved stretching high-achieving students, bringing in better

teaching and new adaptive learning technologies, and carefully evaluating and

redesigning, where necessary, academic support services for struggling students. For

high-achieving students, I developed a leadership pathway program, a Rhodes-

Marshall program to prepare students for prestigious scholarship and fellowship

competitions, and fostered a redesign of the Honors program along the lines of a

small liberal arts college with early research exposure. I began the Chancellor’s

Research Fellows competition and fostered the development of early research

experiences across the colleges through a variety of incentive programs. I started a

“new faculty” course for entering assistant professors to provide “basic training” for

teaching in the research university. I doubled the size of the campus’s Academy of

Distinguished Teachers, and fostered their involvement in mentoring faculty

members whose teaching is subpar as well as their redesign of teaching evaluations.

I developed an incentive program for colleagues to redesign courses to bring in more

interactive engagement and discovery-based learning opportunities. I also developed

an incentive program for colleagues to pilot and increase their use of well-validated

adaptive learning technologies. I encouraged redesign of our humanities, social

THINKING ABOUT SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES AS SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS

sciences, and business learning communities to focus on academic skill

development. I used the results of program evaluations to foster the introduction of

best practices in tutoring and summer “catch-up” programs.

As an educational reformer, I became involved in a number of national

associations beginning in the mid-2000s, including the University Innovations

Alliance (a consortium of eleven public research universities devoted to improving

graduation rates among low-income and under-represented minority students), the

previously-mentioned SERU Consortium, the Reinvention Center, and the

Educational Advisory Board’s Academic Affairs Forum. This reform work led to a

collaboration with the Russell Sage Foundation and Charles Clotfelter, my co-editor,

on a volume entitled Effectiveness in Higher Education (Brint and Clotfelter

forthcoming).

SCHOOLING IN COMPARATIVE-HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

A final major interest has been in the understanding of schooling in a comparative-

historical perspective. The centerpiece of this work is Schools and Societies (2006

[1998]). The book combines an organizational theory approach to the structure of

schooling; a consciousness of affinities between social and educational change; and

a Weberian approach to the multi-sided struggles for control of curricula,

educational opportunities, and educational policy. In a book with a wide sweep, it is

possible only to note a few highlights.

The book emphasizes that social institutions are intended to raise standards and

to reduce the variability among children that would otherwise exist. They owe their

success to the implementation of authority structures, rules, comparatively small

classes, grading as a means to create status hierarchies among children related to

school goals, the alternation between work and recreational time, and the creation of

classroom environments in which work tasks are of pre-eminent significance.

Schools can organize in a variety of ways to increase learning, notably by spending

more time on task, by providing adequate learning materials, and by grouping

children effectively. However, learning is only one way to raise standards and to

reduce variability. The book endorses the insights of John Meyer and Brian Rowan

(1977) about the importance of “ritual categories,” such as “credentialed teacher”

and “college graduate,” as legitimating forces and mechanisms for hiding variability.

It also emphasizes socialization messages both within and outside the classroom.

My intuition was that socialization was more important than any of the other

ostensible purposes of schooling. By socialization, I mean the effort to inculcate and

reinforce authority-approved attitudes and behaviors. The book differentiates three

dimensions of conformity: behavioral, moral, and cultural. It also distinguishes four

socio-historical forms of school-based socialization: the village/communal pattern,

the industrializing pattern, the bureau-corporate pattern and the elite pattern. The

first transformation is from the relatively free-flowing village/communal pattern to

an industrial pattern characterized by very stringent demands for behavioral control

and moral conformity. The bureau-corporate/mass consumption pattern, which

comes into play in middle-class neighborhoods in wealthy countries is based on

impersonal control through rules and routines, relatively lower levels of moral

discussion and training, and many more choices in classroom and extracurricular

life. Students are acculturated to a world of bureaucratic organization and mass

consumption.

STEVEN BRINT

I emphasized that schools are also a staging ground for developing skills in

informal socialization. Just as the classroom is well designed to produce orderly and

industrious employees, the playground is well designed to produce adults with at

least minimal levels of interpersonal skills. This production is connected to structural

features of the playground. The playground is supervised by adult monitors, but not

directed by them. Many children mix freely on the playground and therefore

relations with a wide variety of types of children are possible. Children are similar

in age, bringing a rough equality, but are usually not close neighbors or family

members, encouraging repeated encounters with “strangers.” On the playground,

children must learn to build core groups of supporters and deal with bullies,

‘tagalongs,’ tattletales, false friends, snobs, and other familiar childhood types.

Through confronting many types of children and diverse issues related to trust,

confidence and conflict, children can become skillful navigators of relationships.

I was skeptical of the idea, most closely associated with the work of Melvin Kohn

(1972) and Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis (1979), that the schools propagate

class-based patterns of socialization. In work with Michael T. Matthews and Mary

C. Contreras (2001), studying working-class and middle-class primary schools in

Southern California (and including one elite private school), we found that the main

socialization messages were quite similar across schools. These messages focused

on order and effort: sitting still, not bothering other children, and working hard.

These are not properly construed as capitalist forms of socialization; one would not

have found any different basic pattern in Bolshevik Russia or Maoist China. They

express features of life in highly-organized, economically advancing societies.

Anthropologists have shown that tolerance for disorder, wandering attention, and

irregular effort are more common in remote regions of agrarian societies with low

or moderate development trajectories. In this study, we were surprised by how few

messages in any of the classrooms concerned intellectual virtues (curiosity,

creativity, independent thinking). We also discovered that schools use concepts

drawn from the broader culture, such as citizenship and self-esteem, and redefine

them in ways that support the authority structure of the school. In the schools we

studied, citizenship, for example, had nothing to do with exercise one’s rights,

including the right to protest. Instead, a good citizen was one who consistently

followed the rules of the school.

My interests in cultural transmission focused on historicizing the rise and fall of

subject matter and linking these curricular changes to developments in the economy,

the state, and society. I identified a number of patterns of correspondence, some

related to economic relations, others to social incorporation, and still others to

national political priorities. I have emphasized that agrarian subjects give way as the

rural economy gives way to commercial and industrial life. I have emphasized that

subject matter associated with highly cultivated elites tend to give way to subject

matter that reflect aspirations for social incorporation. (Latin and art history fall,

literature and history representative of minority group experiences gain). Both

immigration patterns and national geopolitical interests affect language teaching.

(European languages and Russian fall, Asian languages and Arabic gain). Coalitions

are often important in transformations of curriculum. Mathematics and science

entered the curriculum not only because of the advocacy of scientists, but because

calculation became a more important social capacity with the rise of commercial

civilization and business people favored more widespread facility with calculation.

More generally, I emphasized the interplay of the state, the liberal professions, and

THINKING ABOUT SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES AS SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS

social movements in the formation of the curriculum (Brint 2006: chap. 4). One can

say that the curriculum is the product of the overlapping interests of the state and the

liberal professionals. National language and history teaching encourages

identification with the nation-state. But the messages of literature and history are the

province of textbook writers who are themselves professors or who have worked

closely with professors. Progressive educators fought to bring the arts and physical

education into the curriculum. The State has little interest in these fields, but it

conceded space to the social movement of progressive educators. Educators have

been persuasive that a focus solely on “serious” subjects is too taxing for children.

However, “back to basics” movements are very popular with state officials, as well

as conservatives, and cuts to the arts and physical education are tolerated if it appears

that children are not succeeding in core fields. The state’s interest in social

incorporation has been an important influence since the Civil Rights movement and,

goaded by social movement activists, has led to many changes in the literature,

history, and social science curricula.

The weight of sociological work at this time was on the reproduction of class,

racial-ethnic and gender privileges through schooling. Although I acknowledged the

many advantages that students from the dominant groups held in converting

economic and social privileges into scholastic attainments, I also resisted what I

regarded to be a one-sided emphasis on inequality. I emphasized that educational

attainment itself, rather than class background or measured intelligence, is the most

important influence on later life chances. Hundreds of thousands of students from

the bottom half of the income distribution are identified as academically promising

by school systems and thereby provided with the encouragement and tools to

advance through the educational system. This capacity of the system is greatly

enhanced by the existence of neighborhood schools whose students are drawn from

relatively homogeneous and class differentiated populations. Because every school

produces hierarchies, some students in poor neighborhoods will, by definition,

achieve high rank within their schools. By contrast, if students from highly educated

families were distributed more evenly across schools the opportunity to resort based

on school achievement would be markedly lower.

Within this context, I emphasized that social class is a constant divider across the

world. Students from well-educated families come to school with a wide set of

advantages. Their parents tend to use larger vocabularies, read to them at night,

encourage their literacy, set aside study spaces, insist on completion of homework,

provide them tutoring, get involved in the schools, travel abroad, and expose them

to cultural institutions. Not all of these practices exist in every society, but these are

characteristic of the types of family practices that can lead to scholastic advantages.

I characterized race and ethnicity as a variable divider, because some racial-ethnic

minorities do very well in school systems, while others do not. I noted the

importance of timing of arrival in the host country (better to arrive at a time of rapid

industrialization), the distribution of rural versus urban backgrounds, and oral versus

written traditions. I also emphasized the study cultures characteristic of members of

different ethnic groups once they have arrived in a host country. I characterized

gender as a declining divider and, somewhat against the grain at the time, speculated

on the advantages that girls held over boys in academic achievement. I honestly

thought I might become anathema among feminists, but that did not happen,

presumably because I also emphasized the continuing disadvantages women faced

STEVEN BRINT

in the labor market and in the most highly marketable science and engineering

majors.

I distinguished the main forms of variation in the structure of schooling systems

in the advanced societies and to identify some likely consequences of these

variations. I focused on distinct starting points: elite preparation and democratic

uplift. These starting points influenced the trajectory of mass schooling, with the

former typically leading to greater ability-based tracking and slower rates of

expansion. These differences are also linked to the size of the population studying

vocational subjects in secondary school. Following the work of James Rosenbaum,

I emphasized differences between systems, such as the German and Japanese

systems, that create close connections between occupationally oriented secondary

school students and employers and those that do not create these connections (see,

e.g., Rosenbaum and Binder 1997; Rosenbaum and Kariya 1989). Finally, I

emphasized differences between systems that link admission to higher levels in the

educational system to examination scores and those that use a wider range of criteria.

The former tend to create a more highly concentrated focus on academics during

secondary school years. These structural features were historically related to life

chances, with highly tracked systems with large vocational systems and heavy

emphasis on test-based mobility associated with weaker chances for success in the

educational system for students from lower income backgrounds. Students sense of

status boundaries, the importance of academic discipline, and their levels of

opportunity consciousness as compared to class consciousness are also, I argued,

related to these structural characteristics of school systems in the industrialized

world. At the same time, educational expansion and the “watering down” of entrance

tests are worldwide phenomena and have consequently led to much greater similarity

across systems since the 1970s. Levels of inequality in society have become a much

more important influence on life chances and structural differences between systems

a less important influence.

I also analyzed the structures of schooling in the developing world. I emphasized

the effects of colonial legacies on the structure of schooling, with most postcolonial

societies erected systems modeled in large part on their colonial rulers. These

countries have faced the problems of poverty, traditionalism, and physical insecurity

as limits on educational achievement. Nevertheless, one can see differences in the

first post-colonial generation between mass mobilizing and status quo oriented

(often authoritarian) leaders in these countries, with the former being more interested

in and more successful in developing mass literacy and educational opportunities for

the poor. The World Bank and other major international players created a blueprint

for educational development that was widely influential in the second post-colonial

generation. The World Bank argued that most educational policymaking in the

developing world had been a disaster with too much funding of higher education

relative to primary schooling, too much funding of vocational education relative to

general education, and too little private investment in schooling relative to public

investment. The policies it advocated can be characterized as “back to basics” at the

primary level and “let the market decide” at the post-primary level. As economic

circumstances have diverged in the developing countries so too have schooling

conditions. High-income countries such as Argentina, Taiwan, and Kuwait, show

educational attainment profiles similar to those of industrialized societies, while

educational attainments have stagnated or deteriorated in low-income countries and

regions. I expressed skepticism both about the role of schooling in promoting

THINKING ABOUT SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES AS SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS

economic development and about its irrelevance to this objective. When a

commitment to human capital development through schooling is combined with

political stability, declining population growth, effective policies for the

advancement of trade and industry, and macroeconomic stability to prevent over-

borrowing low-income developing countries begin to experience strong rates of

growth and development. But investing in schooling without these other “success

ingredients” cannot lead to the achievement of development aims.

TOWARD A BROADER FRAME FOR THE SOCIOLOGY OF EDUCATION

In recent years I have been involved in efforts to expand the frame of the sociology

of education. I remarked on the limited scope of the sociology of education in the

first edition of Schools and Societies (1998 [2006]), noting that “in adult life, the

knowledge taught in school does not necessarily count for more than other forms of

knowledge, such as common sense, popular culture, merchandising, folklore, and

religious belief” (p. 98), and implying that a broader sociology of education would

be less school focused and would instead contrast schooling with competing culture-

producing and knowledge-creating institutions. I broadened this nascent critique in

an essay “The Collective Mind at Work” (2009 [2013]) in which I conducted a

content analysis of a decade of articles in the journal Sociology of Education. I

concluded that the “collective mind,” as represented in the journal, was heavily

quantitative, focused on K-12 schooling in the United States, and had as its major

theme the effects of inequalities on academic achievement and educational

attainment. In the essay I called for a sociology of education that was more

international in scope, more open to qualitative work, more connected to non-school

based educational influences and institutions, and focused as much on “school-to-

society” links (i.e. school inputs to the shaping of society and culture) as on as

“society-to-school” links (i.e. the influence of inequality on schooling). I did not

reject the field’s achievements in the study of inequality, but I argued that a more

rounded perspective would lead to a better appreciation of schooling’s role in the

construction of society and culture.

This essay helped to launch an intellectual movement to broaden the scope of our

sub-discipline, though it was certainly not the only source for that movement. The

first culmination of the movement will come with the publication of Jal Mehta and

Scott Davies’s edited volume, Education in a New Society. My contribution to the

volume examines the institutional geography of “knowledge trade” between

universities and other social institutions. Today it is evident that knowledge

originates in many institutions—universities in the United States account for only

about half of basic research and much less than that of applied research. I develop a

view of the university in this complex institutional ecology that partially dethrones

the university as knowledge generator while at the same time showing its essential

role in the adjudication of knowledge claims. I argue that the metaphor of economic

trade provides a potentially illuminating lens for understanding academic knowledge

and its intercourse with knowledge originating in other institutional domains. I

develop a vocabulary for understanding the primary forms of interaction between

academic knowledge and knowledge originating in other spheres of society. A

knowledge-producing institution is any institution that creates a body of knowledge

that shapes practice and is based on more than assertion, convention, or opinion.

Examples include: formulas for successful popular culture genres, influential

STEVEN BRINT

management tools such as “the balanced scorecard,” yogic philosophy and practice,

charettes in architecture, and scenario planning in the military. I develop a

vocabulary for discussing universities and the institutional geography of knowledge

trade. Knowledge exports and imports are bodies of knowledge that pass into new

institutional arenas and are either appropriated wholesale, or are subjected to

processes of testing, refinement, and revision consistent with the practices and

purposes of the adopting institutional arena. Trade routes describe the direction and

heaviness of the traffic from one institutional domain to another. Barriers to cross-

institutional trade in order of severity consist of corrupted knowledge goods, failed

exchanges, and boycotts and blockades. Meta-cognitive metropoles are the centers

of adjudication of truth claims. When one broadens the scope of knowledge creation

beyond academe, it seems clear that the knowledge generation function is not a

monopoly of academe, but that the adjudicatory function remains a near-monopoly

(Brint forthcoming).

CONCLUSION

An intellectual self-portrait ought to be a recounting not only of how one thought

about the subjects of one’s work, but the personal and intellectual influences on that

thinking. My own experiences of ambivalence about schooling no doubt played an

important role in the development of my thinking. I found reading to be a magic

carpet that brought me wherever I wanted to travel and into deep encounters with

people I wanted to know more about. At times when domestic relations in our

household were rocky, I valued the predictable structures of school. Yet I was often

terrifically bored by classroom life—to the extent that I refused to attend school for

nearly an entire year at age eight. I experienced tensions throughout my early life

reconciling my intellectual interests with the business orientation of my maternal

family. (These tensions were ultimately resolved during my years as a university

administrator.) I was emotionally moved by the attempts of the first professors I met

to heal the wounds of the Kansas City riots of 1968 by bringing together adolescents

from the suburbs and the inner-city for “rap sessions.” This experience led me to see

the possibilities of teaching in a different light. I was greatly influenced by my

teachers at Berkeley, particularly by the clarity and structure of Neil Smelser’s

lectures (and his good humor in the face of radical critique) and the freedom of

thought and creativity fostered by Troy Duster. Intellectual friendships with the

sociologists Jerome Karabel, Eliot Freidson, and Robert A. Hanneman, have been

pivotal influences on my thinking and my work. I was fortunate to find another

intellectual friend (as well as a lover) in my wife, Michele Renee Salzman. Reading

Max Weber was the decisive intellectual experience of my life. I have done my best

to carry Weber’s sensibilities and lessons into the study of schooling.

AFFILIATION

Steven Brint

University of California, Riverside

MY FAVORITE PERSONAL TEXTS

"'New-Class' and Cumulative Trend Explanations of the Liberal Political Attitudes of Professionals"

American Journal of Sociology, 1984.

THINKING ABOUT SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES AS SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS

The Diverted Dream (with Jerome Karabel) New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.

"Institutional Origins and Transformations" In Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio (eds.) The New

Institutionalism in Organizational Studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991.

In An Age of Experts. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994.

"Professionals and the Knowledge Society" Current Sociology, 2001.

"Gemeinschaft Revisited" Sociological Theory, 2001.

"Socialization Messages in Primary Schools: An Organizational Analysis" Sociology of Education, 2001.

"Creating the Future: The 'New Directions' in American Research Universities" Minerva, 2005.

Schools and Societies, 2nd ed. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2006.

"Reference Sets, Identities, and Aspirations in a Complex Organizational Field: The Case of American

Four-Year Colleges and Universities" (with Mark Riddle and Robert A. Hanneman) Sociology of

Education, 2006.

"The Market Model and the Rise and Fall of Academic Disciplines" (with Kristopher Proctor, Scott

Patrick Murphy and Robert A. Hannenan) Sociological Forum, 2011.

"The Collective Mind at Work" Sociology of Education, 2013.

INFLUENCES

Max Weber, The Sociology of Religion

Willard Waller, The Sociology of Teaching

Reinhard Bendix, Nation-building and Citizenship

Philip Selznick, Leadership in Administration

Seymour Martin Lipset, Political Man

Richard Hofstadter, Anti-Intellectualism in American Thought

Clark Kerr, The Uses of the University

Gianfranco Poggi, The Development of the Modern State

Daniel Bell, The Coming of Post-Industrial Society

Randall Collins, Conflict Sociology

John W. Meyer and Brian Rowan, "Education as an Institution"

Randall Collins, "Some Comparative Principles of Educational Stratification"

Magali Sarfatti Larson, The Rise of Professionalism

Randall Collins, The Credential Society

Jerome Karabel and A.H. Halsey, "Introduction" In Karabel and Halsey, Power and Ideology in

Education

Eliot Freidson, Professional Powers

W. Richard Scott, Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems

W. Richard Scott, Organizations and Institutions

Eliot Freidson, Professionalism: The Third Logic

John W. Meyer, "Reflections on Institutional Theories of Organization." In Royston Greenwood et al.

Institutional Theories of Organization

REFERENCES

Apkarian, Jacob, Kerry Mulligan, Matthew B. Rotondi, and Steven Brint. 2014. “Who Governs?

Academic Decision-Making in U.S. Four-year Colleges and Universities, 2000-2012” Tertiary

Education and Management 20 (2): 1-14.

Arum, Richard and Josipa Roksa. 2011. Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bok, Derek. 2006. Our Under-achieving Colleges. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Bowles, Samuel and Herbert J. Gintis. 1979. Schooling in Capitalist America. New York: Basic Books.

Brint, Steven. 2003. “Few Remaining Dreams: Community Colleges since 1985.”Annals of the American

Academy of Political and Social Science 586 (March): 16-37.

Brint, Steven. 2006 [1998]. Schools and Societies, 2

ed. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Brint, Steven. 2005. “Creating the Future: ‘New Directions’ in American Research Universities.”

Minerva 43: 23-50.

STEVEN BRINT

Brint, Steven. 2007. “Can Public Research Universities Compete?” Pp. 91-118 in Roger L. Geiger Carol

L. Colbeck, Christian K. Anderson, and Roger L. Williams (eds.) The Future of American Public

Research Universities. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Brint, Steven. 2011. “Focus on the Classroom: Movements to Reform Teaching and Learning in U.S.

Colleges and Universities, 1980-2005.” Pp. 44-91 in Joseph C. Hermanowicz (ed.) The American

Academic Profession. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

Brint, Steven. 2013 [2009]. “The Collective Mind at Work: A Decade in the Life of U.S. Sociology of

Education.” Sociology of Education 86: 273-9.

Brint, Steven. Forthcoming. The Ends of Knowledge: Organizational and Cultural Change in U.S. Four-

Year Colleges and Universities, 1980-2015.

Brint, Steven and Allison M. Cantwell. 2010. “Undergraduate Time Use and Academic Outcomes.”

Teachers College Record 112: 2441-70.

Brint, Steven and Allison M. Cantwell. 2014. “Conceptualizing, Measuring and Analyzing the

Characteristics of Disengaged Student Populations: Results from UCUES 2010.” Journal of

College Student Development.

Brint, Steven, Allison M. Cantwell, and Robert A. Hanneman. 2008. “The Two Cultures of

Undergraduate Academic Engagement.” Research in Higher Education 49: 383-402.

Brint, Steven, Allison M. Cantwell, and Preeta Saxena. 2012. “Disciplinary Categories, Majors, and

Undergraduate Academic Experiences: Rethinking Bok’s ‘Under-achieving Colleges’ Thesis.”

Research in Higher Education 53: 1-25.

Brint, Steven and Charles T. Clotfelter (eds). Forthcoming. Effectiveness in Higher Education. New

York: Russell Sage Foundation Press.

Brint, Steven, Mary C. Contreras, and Michael T. Matthews. 2001. “Socialization Messages in Primary

Schools: An Organizational Analysis.” Sociology of Education 74: 157-80.

Brint, Steven and Jerome Karabel. 1989. The Diverted Dream: Community Colleges and the Promise of

Educational Opportunity in America, 1900-1985. New York: Oxford University Press.

Brint, Steven, and Jerome Karabel. 1991. “Institutional Origins and Transformations: The Case of

American Community Colleges.” Pp. 337-60 in Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio, eds. The

New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Brint, Steven, Kristopher Proctor, Kerry Mulligan, Matthew B. Rotondi, and Robert A. Hanneman. 2012.

“Declining Academic Fields in U.S. Four-Year Colleges and Universities, 1970-2006.” The Journal

of Higher Education 83: 583-613.

Brint, Steven, Kristopher Proctor, Scott Patrick Murphy, and Robert A. Hanneman. 2012. “The Market

Model and the Growth and Decline of Academic Fields in U.S. Four-Year Colleges and Universities,

1980-2000.” Sociological Forum 27: 275-99.

Brint, Steven, Kristopher Proctor, Scott Patrick Murphy, Kerry Mulligan, Matthew B. Rotondi, and

Robert A. Hanneman. 2011. “Who are the Early Adopters? The Institutionalization of Academic

Growth Fields in U.S. Four-Year Colleges and Universities, 1975-2005.” Higher Education 61: 563-

85.

Brint, Steven, Kristopher Proctor, Scott Patrick Murphy, Lori Turk-Bicakci, and Robert A. Hanneman

2009. “General Education Models: The Changing Meanings of Liberal Education in American

Colleges and Universities, 1975-2000.” The Journal of Higher Education 80: 605-42.

Brint, Steven, Mark Riddle, and Robert A. Hanneman. 2006. “Reference Sets, Identities, and Aspirations

in a Complex Organizational Field: The Case of American Four-Year Colleges and Universities.”

2006. Sociology of Education 79: 126-140.

Brint, Steven, Mark Riddle, Lori Turk-Bicakci, and Charles S. Levy. 2005. “From the Liberal to the

Practical Arts in American Colleges and Universities: Organizational Analysis and Curricular

Change.” The Journal of Higher Education 76: 151-80.

Brint, Steven and Sue Teele. 2008. “Professionalism Under Siege: Teachers’ Views of the No Child Left

Behind Act.” Pp. 131-52 in Alan R. Sadovnik, George H. Bohrnstedt, Jennifer O’Day, and Katherine

M. Borman (eds.), Federal Legislation, No Child Left Behind, and the Reduction of the Achievement

Gap: Sociological Perspectives on Federal Education Policy. New York: Routledge.

Brint, Steven, Lori Turk-Bicakci, Kristopher Proctor, and Scott Patrick Murphy. 2009. “Expanding the

Social Frame: The Growth and Distribution of Interdisciplinary Degree-granting Programs in

American Colleges and Universities, 1975-2000.” Review of Higher Education 32: 155-183.

Kerr, Clark. 1963. The Uses of the University. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kohn, Melvin L. 1972. Class and Conformity. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.

THINKING ABOUT SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES AS SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Mehta, Jal and Scott Davies. Forthcoming. Education in a New Society. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Meyer, John and Brian Rowan. 1977. “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and

Ceremony.” American Journal of Sociology 83: 340-63.

Rosenbaum, James E. and Amy Binder. 1997.’Do Employers Really Need More Educated Youth?”

Sociology of Education 70: 68-85.

Rosenbaum, James E. and Takehiko Kariya. 1989. “From High School to Work: Market and Institutional

Mechanisms in Japan.” American Journal of Sociology 94: 1334-65.

Saez, Emmanuel and Gabriel Zucman. 2014 (March). The Distribution of U.S. Wealth, Capital Income,

and Returns since 1913. Unpublished paper. University of California, Berkeley, Department of

Economics.