Two examples of how a key to achieving higher social class is to learn the right kinds of hypocrisy: Working-class students are more likely to enter college with the notion that the purpose of higher education is learning in the classroom and invest their time and energies accordingly. … This type of academically focused script clashes with the “party” and social cultures of many US colleges. It isolates working and lower middle-class students from peer networks that can provide them with valuable information about how to navigate the social landscape of college as well as future job opportunities. The resulting feelings of isolation and alienation adversely affect these students’ grades, levels of happiness, and likelihood of graduation. … [This] also adversely affects their job prospects. (p.13
Further, I rather suspect that the author of the piece understood that full well, and was rather disingenuously trying to avoid copping to the most obvious reason for the "ceiling".
Of course it's "clever" in that it sort-of acknowledges the source of the discrimination but still makes it sound like the targets are primarily somehow victims of some sort of subtle deficiency in their upbringing, and if they'd only conformed to the 'superior' culture better they'd have no issues. IIRC the term of art for this sort of tack is "crackpot realism".
The upper-class students at a mid-rank school are downwardly mobile (otherwise they would be at a prestige school) and the lower-class students are upwardly mobile (otherwise they would not be in college).
If the upper-class students at a mid-rank school party and the lower-class students study, that does not mean partying is the way to get ahead.
I kept thinking that the same sort of dynamics apply to women, except more so. When they show up in a "man's world" field, they tend to accept the hard work / little glory tasks that demonstrate their commitment and competence. But when picking the quarterback, the team will favor the guy - typically a guy - who passed up the important drudgery to take on the glory-seeking work.
But with women and Asians both: Let's not pretend that it's simply about knowing which rules to break. There just are different rules for different groups, at least prima facie.
I find this plausible but incomplete. It also seems that number, selection and strength of the rules which are 'meant for you' can vary with your class, ethnic, or other groupings as perceived by the official (and defacto unofficial) rule-enforcers.
Further, I rather suspect that the author of the piece understood that full well, and was rather disingenuously trying to avoid copping to the most obvious reason for the "ceiling".
Of course it's "clever" in that it sort-of acknowledges the source of the discrimination but still makes it sound like the targets are primarily somehow victims of some sort of subtle deficiency in their upbringing, and if they'd only conformed to the 'superior' culture better they'd have no issues. IIRC the term of art for this sort of tack is "crackpot realism".
The upper-class students at a mid-rank school are downwardly mobile (otherwise they would be at a prestige school) and the lower-class students are upwardly mobile (otherwise they would not be in college).
If the upper-class students at a mid-rank school party and the lower-class students study, that does not mean partying is the way to get ahead.
I kept thinking that the same sort of dynamics apply to women, except more so. When they show up in a "man's world" field, they tend to accept the hard work / little glory tasks that demonstrate their commitment and competence. But when picking the quarterback, the team will favor the guy - typically a guy - who passed up the important drudgery to take on the glory-seeking work.
But with women and Asians both: Let's not pretend that it's simply about knowing which rules to break. There just are different rules for different groups, at least prima facie.
Yes. PM me. No promises.
Is your company hiring? :)
thew -> the?
I find this plausible but incomplete. It also seems that number, selection and strength of the rules which are 'meant for you' can vary with your class, ethnic, or other groupings as perceived by the official (and defacto unofficial) rule-enforcers.
classes >>> clashes
In my experience this is correct, and it's why at my company we prefer to hire people with working-class backgrounds. (I think that's still legal.)