Remapping the “landscape of choice”: patterns of social class convergence in the psycho-social factors shaping the higher education choice process

2012 ◽  
Vol 64 (4) ◽  
pp. 493-510 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel Charles Kettley ◽  
Joan M. Whitehead
2009 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 209-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tina Byrom

Whilst there has been growing attention paid to the imbalance of Higher Education (HE) applications according to social class, insufficient attention has been paid to the successful minority of working-class young people who do secure places in some of the UK’s leading HE institutions. In particular, the influence and nature of pre-university interventions on such students’ choice of institution has been under-explored. Data from an ESRC-funded PhD study of 16 young people who participated in a Sutton Trust Summer School are used to illustrate how the effects of a school-based institutional habitus and directed intervention programmes can be instrumental in guiding student choices and decisions relating to participation in Higher Education.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isla Dougall ◽  
Mario Weick ◽  
Milica Vasiljevic

Within Higher Education (HE), lower social class staff and students often experience poorer wellbeing than their higher social class counterparts. Previous research conducted outside educational contexts has linked social class differences in wellbeing with differences in the extent to which low and high social class individuals feel respected (i.e., status), in control (i.e., autonomy), and connected with others (i.e., inclusion). However, to our knowledge, there has been no research that has investigated these factors within HE settings. Furthermore, inclusion, status and autonomy are correlated, yet little is known about how these factors contribute to wellbeing simultaneously, and independently, of one another. To fill these gaps, we report the results of two studies; firstly with HE students (Study 1; N = 305), and secondly with HE staff (Study 2; N = 261). Consistently across studies, reports of poor wellbeing were relatively common and more than twice as prevalent amongst lower social class staff and students compared to higher social class staff and students. Inclusion, status and autonomy each made a unique contribution and accounted for the relationship between social class and wellbeing (fully amongst students, and partially amongst staff members). These relationships held across various operationalisations of social class and when examining a range of facets of wellbeing. Social class along with inclusion, status and autonomy explained a substantial 40% of the variance in wellbeing. The present research contributes to the literature exploring how social class intersects with social factors to impact the wellbeing of staff and students within HE.


Sociology ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 35 (04) ◽  
pp. 855-874 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane Reay ◽  
Jacqueline Davies ◽  
Miriam David ◽  
Stephen J Ball

Sociology ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 855-874 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane Reay ◽  
Jacqueline Davies ◽  
Miriam David ◽  
Stephen J Ball

2020 ◽  
pp. 007542422097914
Author(s):  
Karin Aijmer

Well has a long history and is found as an intensifier already in older English. It is argued that diachronically well has developed from its etymological meaning (‘in a good way’) on a cline of adverbialization to an intensifier and to a discourse marker. Well is replaced by other intensifiers in the fourteenth century but emerges in new uses in Present-Day English. The changes in frequency and use of the new intensifier are explored on the basis of a twenty-year time gap between the old British National Corpus (1994) and the new Spoken British National Corpus (2014). The results show that well increases in frequency over time and that it spreads to new semantic types of adjectives and participles, and is found above all in predicative structures with a copula. The emergence of a new well and its increase in frequency are also related to social factors such as the age, gender, and social class of the speakers, and the informal character of the conversation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document