What Makes Sammy Run?: An Empirical Assessment of the Bowles-Gintis Correspondence Theory.

Autor/inn/en	Olneck, Michael R.; Bills, David B.
Institution	Wisconsin Univ., Madison. Inst. for Research on Poverty.
Titel	What Makes Sammy Run?: An Empirical Assessment of the Bowles-Gintis Correspondence Theory.
Quelle	(1979), (56 Seiten) PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Monographie
Schlagwörter	Academic Achievement; Adults; Educational Attainment; Elementary Secondary Education; Employment Level; Higher Education; Income; Individual Characteristics; Males; Parent Background; Personality Traits; School Role; Socioeconomic Status; Theories + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Schulleistung; Bildungsabschluss; Bildungsgut; Beschäftigungsgrad; Hochschulbildung; Hochschulsystem; Hochschulwesen; Einkommen; Personality characteristic; Personality traits; Persönlichkeitsmerkmal; Male; Männliches Geschlecht; Elternhaus; Individual characteristics; Socio-economic status; Sozioökonomischer Status; Theory; Theorie
Abstract	The Bowles-Gintis correspondence theory rejects conventional theories that stress the role of cognitive skills in explaining the link between educational attainment and occupational status or earnings. Bowles and Gintis propose that schools serve primarily to develop noncognitive characteristics necessary to the reproduction of the social relations of production in a capitalist economy. In this paper, Olneck's Kalamazoo Brothers data are used to test the Bowles-Gintis correspondence theory. The data include tenth grade homeroom teachers' ratings on nine personality or behavioral measures, sixth grade aptitude test scores, tenth grade English marks, measures of family background, initial and current occupational status, and 1973 earnings for a sample of 35 to 59 year old males. Findings indicate that the empirical predictions of the correspondence theory are unsupported. Critics of what Bowles and Gintis label the "technocratic-meritocratic" model of achievement would fare better by questioning the model's explanatory and interpretive premises than by disputing its empirical predictions. (Author/MK)
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC