Poverty, partiality, and the purchase of expensive education

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Freiman

Prioritarianism doesn’t value equality as such – any reason to equalize is due to the benefits for the worse off. But some argue that prioritarianism and egalitarianism coincide in their implications for the distribution of education: Equalizing educational opportunities improves the socioeconomic opportunities of the worse off. More specifically, a system that prohibits parents from making differential private educational expenditures would result in greater gains to the worse off than a system that permits these expenditures, all else equal. This article argues that prioritarianism opposes a cap on educational expenditures. The argument, in brief, is that an equalized provision of schooling does a worse job of channeling the partiality of rich families in ways that produce positive spillover for poorer children. My challenge to the prioritarian case for educational equality is an internal one: the very concerns about parental partiality that underlie prioritarian objections to uncapped educational expenditures apply with even greater force to a system that caps educational expenditures.

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gholamreza Marmarian ◽  
Mahammad Hassani ◽  
Behnaz Mohajeran

Background: Today, the health higher education system has a privileged position in maintaining, rebuilding, producing, and creating new knowledge and responsibilities in medical universities. Solving these problems requires adopting a scientific and research approach in order to provide fair conditions and equal educational opportunities. Objectives: The present study aimed to evaluate the determinants of equal access to higher health education opportunities in Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences (KUMS), Iran. Methods: This descriptive cross-sectional study evaluated contextual, input, process, and output indicators. Samples included the documents and statistics of seven schools of KUMS and 358 students of these schools in the academic year 2020 - 2021. Census sampling was used for the documents, and relative stratified random sampling was applied for the descriptive sections. Data analysis was performed in SPSS using TOPSIS and multiple linear regression models in a stepwise manner. Results: The independent variables were significant regarding the variable of inequality in educational opportunities among the medical students of KUMS (F = 590.11; P < 0.001). The variables of the model explained 99.7% of the variance of the dependent variable, indicating inequality between the KUMS medical schools in terms of the studied indicators. Conclusions: Government policies should be focused on the development of educational equality in medical sciences on all levels of health, education, and technological developments. Our findings indicated differences between the medical schools of KUMS in terms of educational indicators and the location of the schools in less privileged, semi-privileged, and privileged areas.


10.28945/4637 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 517-539
Author(s):  
Hanna Nori ◽  
Marja H Peura ◽  
Arto Jauhiainen

Aim/Purpose: The aim of this study is to provide a comprehensive picture of doctoral students’ dissertation journeys using Finland as a case country. More specifically, the article examines (1) the students’ backgrounds, (2) their study motives and experiences, and (3) whether or not these elements are related. Background: Despite the massification of higher education (HE), there is a shortage of detailed mixed-methods studies about PhD students’ backgrounds and their experiences of doctoral study. Existing research does not give a clear indication of the extent to which home background is reflected in PhD applications and whether or not that background is related to the subsequent experience of doctoral students. Methodology: This paper is based on both quantitative and qualitative data. We utilize a person-based register (N = 18,585) and a survey (n = 1,651). Our main methods are k-means cluster analysis, t-test, and directed content analysis. Our theoretical approach is Bourdieuian. We use the concept of doctoral capital when evaluating the backgrounds, resources, and success of PhD students through the dissertation process. Contribution: This study uses a mixed-methods approach and is the first to incorporate quantitative data about the entire doctoral student population in Finland. In addition, open-ended responses in the survey make the PhD students’ own experiences visible. By approaching our research subject through a mixed methods lens, we aim to create a comprehensive understanding about their dissertation journeys. With this study, we also contribute to the debate initiated by Falconer and Djokic (2019). They found that age, race, and socioeconomic status (SES) do not influence academic self-efficacy and academic self-handicapping behaviors in doctoral students. However, in this study, a link was found between the PhD students’ backgrounds (age and parents’ SES), and their study aims and experiences. Findings: Cluster analysis revealed three different groups of PhD students: Status Raisers, Educational Inheritors, and Long-term Plodders. PhD students in these groups have different resources, experiences, and chances to survive in the academic community. There are two main findings. First, the influence of the childhood family extends all the way to doctoral education, even in Finland, which is considered to have one of the most equal HE systems in the world. Some PhD students from low-educated families even experienced so-called imposter syndrome. They described experiences of inadequacy, incompetence, and inferiority in relation to doctoral studies and fellow students. Second, the influence of family background may diminish with age and life experiences. In our study, many mature doctoral students had become empowered and emancipated to such an extent that they relied more on their own abilities and skills than on their family backgrounds. Many felt that their own persistence and resilience have played an important role in their doctoral studies. There were also a few ‘heroic tales’ about hard work and survival in spite of all the hurdles and distresses. Recommendations for Practitioners: PhD students are a very heterogeneous group. Their motives and goals for applying for doctoral studies vary, and their backgrounds and life situations affect their studies. There are three critical points educational practitioners should pay special attention to (1) supervision and support (mentoring), (2) length of funding, and (3) granted research periods. Recommendation for Researchers: Because Finland and the other Nordic countries have a long tradition of equal educational opportunities, we need comparative studies on the same topic from countries with higher educational disparities. Impact on Society: Inequalities in educational opportunities and experiences originate at the very beginning of the educational path, and they usually cumulate over the years. For this reason, the achievement of educational equality should be promoted not only through education policy but also through family, regional, and social policy decisions. Future Research: The Bourdieuian concepts of cultural, social, and economic capitals are also relevant in doctoral education. PhD students’ family backgrounds are reflected in their motives, experiences, and interpretations in the academic community. Future research should explore how to best support and reinforce the self-confidence of doctoral students from lower SES backgrounds.


2009 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 52-57
Author(s):  
John A. Tetnowski

Abstract Cluttering is discussed openly in the fluency literature, but few educational opportunities for learning more about cluttering exist in higher education. The purpose of this manuscript is to explain how a seminar in cluttering was developed for a group of communication disorders doctoral students. The major theoretical issues, educational questions, and conclusions are discussed.


1983 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-5
Author(s):  
Dade Moeller

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Nathan Story ◽  
Phung Pham ◽  
Cynthia A. Berg ◽  
Deborah J. Wiebe

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document