Social inclusion is one, important, form of social equity at play, but participation in a high participation system does not in itself trigger redistribution of opportunities. In fact as systems grow, the proportion of places that are elite places shrinks, intensifying competition for those places, which favours the upper middle class bet equipped to compete for those places. Conditions that enhance the stratification of value, national ‘stretching’ systems vertically Empirically, across the research on the growth of participation have found that as systems expand, social inequalities in access to elite universities and career outcomes have not been reduced. As Shavit and colleagues put it in their 2007 study of stratification in higher education, as systems expand, differentiation replaces inequalities in the quantity of the ‘qualitative education obtained’. Stratification effects trump the equalization of educational quantity through growth, except when the rapid expansion of the middle class is driving high social mobility, as in the US in the 1960s/1970s, and China in the last twenty years. More commonly, as higher education expands, affluent families tend to dominate the elite institutions, while newly participating social layers are largely confined to the sub-elite institutions where participation alone is not enough to generate strong social outcomes. Nevertheless, despite varied policy assumptions, financing, structural forms and stratification, participation everywhere advances. This suggests not simply that there is a single process at work in these discrete national systems, but also that relationships between system structure and participation, and private costs and participation, are not subject to universal laws alone, but are also system-specific. High growth is the common feature but countries facilitate it and adapt to it in variable ways. Having said that, the common fact of high growth remains striking. For example, the fact the English-speaking countries have dramatically stepped up private costs without permanently reducing total participation confirms Trow’s point that as participation reaches majority levels it becomes quasi-compulsory. Middle class families cannot absent themselves because of the social and economic costs of This suggests that as systems expand, the elasticity of student demand falls, and governments can more readily impose higher tuition regimes on their populations, though there will still be marginal groups for whom subsidization of participation is essential. But this equation between growth and elasticity is likely to be nationally variable, and the problem requires further empirical test. The spread of high participation systems to one of the world’s nations,
Social inclusion is one, important, form of social equity at play, but participation in a high participation system does not in itself trigger redistribution of opportunities. In fact as systems grow, the proportion of places that are elite places shrinks, intensifying competition for those places, which favours the upper middle class bet equipped to compete for those places. Conditions that enhance the stratification of value, ‘stretching’ national systems vertically Empirically, across the research on the growth of participation have found that as systems expand, social inequalities in access to elite universities and career outcomes have not been reduced. As Shavit and colleagues put it in their 2007 study of stratification in higher education, as systems expand, ‘qualitative differentiation replaces inequalities in the quantity of the education obtained’. Stratification effects trump the equalization of educational quantity through growth, except when the rapid expansion of the middle class is driving high social mobility, as in the US in the 1960s/1970s, and China in the last twenty years. More commonly, as higher education expands, affluent families tend to dominate the elite institutions, while newly participating social layers are largely confined to the sub-elite institutions where participation alone is not enough to generate strong social outcomes. Nevertheless, despite varied policy assumptions, financing, structural forms and stratification, participation everywhere advances. This suggests not simply that there is a single process at work in these discrete national systems, but also that relationships between system structure and participation, and private costs and participation, are not subject to universal laws alone, but are also system-specific. High growth is the common feature but countries facilitate it and adapt to it in variable ways. Having said that, the common fact of high growth remains striking. For example, the fact the English-speaking countries have dramatically stepped up private costs without permanently reducing total participation confirms Trow’s point that as participation reaches majority levels it becomes quasi-compulsory. Middle class families cannot absent themselves because of the social and economic costs of This suggests that as systems expand, the elasticity of student demand falls, and governments can more readily impose higher tuition regimes on their populations, though there will still be marginal groups for whom subsidization of participation is essential. But this equation between growth and elasticity is likely to be nationally variable, and the problem requires further empirical test. The spread of high participation systems to one of the world’s nations,
jnu-11-jan-2017.docx