Social Stratification Melinda D. Kane, Ph.D.

SOC 6350 501/POEC 7376 502 School of Social Sciences

Fall 2004 Office: GR 2.204
R 7:00-9:45 pm Office Hours: T 10:30-11:30 am
Location: GR 3.402 R 2:30-3:15 pm & by appt.
Office Phone: 972-883-4766
Home Phone: 972-867-4571 (9am-8pm ONLY)
E-mail: melinda.kane@utdallas.edu

Course Description:

Though the United States is often perceived to be a nation without divisive economic splits where
individual achievement is the primary determinant of a person’s success, sociologists find inequality
does exist and that people’s access to societal resources (i.e,. the good stuff in life like money & jobs)
is not just based on their own efforts, but also on their societal positions. This course provides a
survey of the theories and lines of research in the field of social stratification, a core area within
sociology. Stratification is a fairly broad subject, covering many different topics. What links research
together into one substantive field is a focus on the patterned inequalities among social groups that are
sustained over time, particularly class based inequalities. The course begins with some key theories on
the nature and form of stratification, both classic and contemporary. Then, focusing primarily, but not
entirely, on the United States, we turn to the topics of class measurement, class mobility and
reproduction, the link between education and stratification, the implications of race and gender for
social class, global inequality, and the ability of social movements to challenge inequality.

Required Texts:

There are three required books and a required class packet for this course. All three books and the
class packet are available for purchase at both the university bookstore and at Off Campus Books (581
West Campbell Road, Suite 101). (If Off Campus Books is out of classpacks, please ask a sales
associate—they will make more.) All of the required readings & books are also available at the UTD
library. See course schedule for details.

Grusky, David B. 2001. Social Stratification: Class, Race, and Gender in Sociological
Perspective. CO: Westview Press.

Kozol, Jonathan. 1991. Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools. NY: Crown
Publishers, Inc.

Piven, Frances Fox and Richard A. Cloward. 1977. Poor People’s Movements: Why They
Succeed, How They Fail. NY: Vintage Books.

Class packet

1
Class Organization:

This course will be run as a seminar, relying heavily on class discussion and student participation. As
the instructor, there are times when I will present material or provide background information, but my
primary role will be as a facilitator. The vast majority of information and insight will come from you,
the students. I believe that students can learn as much from one another as they can learn from me, or
any other instructor. Therefore, it is extremely important that students attend class regularly and come
to class prepared, having carefully read and thought about the assigned materials each week.

Course Requirements & Student Evaluation:

WEEKLY ASSIGMENTS: To encourage attendance and participation, students will be responsible

each week for writing either a brief summary or a brief critique of one of the assigned readings.
(Specific assignments will be made the week before.) A summary requires you to prepare a concise
synopsis of the main argument in that reading (no more than a paragraph). In other words, what is the
author’s primary point in that piece? In contrast, critiques require you to prepare brief, telling
comments (no more than a paragraph) on a weakness, flaw, or gap in the argument. In the rare cases
when you find nothing to critique, you may instead generate a thought-provoking question. The
question may reflect your genuine puzzlement about something in the reading, be an attempt to
connect the reading with some other reading or current event, or be a research question that is implied
by the author’s argument. Weekly assignments are to be typed and must be brought to class the day
the reading is due. Late weekly assignments will not be accepted and you must attend class to
turn in an assignment. However, each student may miss up to two weekly assignments without
penalty. For students that miss fewer than two assignments, I will drop their lowest scores. Each
assignment will earn a score between three and zero. The weekly assignments are worth 25% of the
course grade. (A not so subtle threat--If I find that students are only reading “their” assigned readings,
I will change the weekly assignments so that students are required to write a summary or critique on all
of the assigned readings.)

EXAMS: Two take-home essay exams will be given. For each of the take-home exams, you will be
asked to respond to one or two essay questions. I will distribute the questions two weeks before the
exam is due. Your answers, which should draw upon the readings and class discussions, will allow
you to summarize, reflect on, synthesize, and evaluate the materials we cover. Each exam is worth
25% of the course grade for a total of 50%. See due dates below.

COURSE PAPER: Finally, each student will write a 12-15 page research paper on a stratification
topic of his/her choice. There are two different paper options: a literature review or a research
proposal. You will have two smaller assignments during the semester to help you get the project
started and to give you some feedback before the final draft is due. The course paper and two, smaller
paper assignments will comprise 25% of the course grade. [See the attached guidelines at the end of
the syllabus for more detailed information about the paper assignment.]

Make-Up and Late Policy:

As mentioned above, late summaries and critiques will not be accepted. Late exams, paper
assignments, and course papers will be, but they will be docked half a letter grade for each date late,
including weekend days. For example, after one day late, a 95% would be dropped to a 90, after two
days late it would be dropped to an 85, and so on. Assignments are considered late if they are turned
in after class has met that week.
2
Grading Scale:

The grading scale for the course is as follows:

A = 90-100% = 4.0 B = 80-89%=3.0 C =70-79% =2.0 F =69% or less =0.0

Important Dates:

Paper topic & 4 references due February 2nd

Exam 1 questions distributed February 9th
Three page summary & 8 references due February 16th
Exam 1 due February 23rd
Exam 2 questions distributed April 6th
Course Paper due April 6th
Exam 2 due April 20th

Scholastic Dishonesty:

Students are required to do their own work and scholastic dishonesty of any kind will not be tolerated.
Ignorance or uncertainty about what is considered scholastic dishonesty is not an excuse. If you are
not sure whether or not something constitutes scholastic dishonesty, you are responsible for checking
with me. I also highly recommend that you familiarize yourself with the university’s official policy,
available in the university catalog and on line at http://www.utdallas.edu/student/slife/scholastic.html
and http://www.utdallas.edu/student/slife/dishonesty.html.

Students Requiring Special Accommodations:

I am happy to accommodate students with special needs. Students who require assistance should
contact the Disabilities Services Office to gather the appropriate paperwork (located in the Student
Union at 1.610; 972-883-2098). Once you have verification from this office, please see me after class
or in my office so we can make the appropriate arrangements.

Course Outline:
The class packet articles are also available at the UTD library. Articles noted with a + are available on-
line; those with a * are available in the library’s on-site journal collection; and those with a ° are on
course reserves (as are the three required books).

January 12 Introduction to the Course

January 19 Theories of Stratification I: Classics and Their Updates

Reading (47 pages):

Marx, Classes in Capitalism and Pre-Capitalism G 91-101
Marx, Ideology and Class G 101-102
Marx, Value and Surplus Value G 103-105
Wright, Varieties of Marxist Conceptions of Class Structure G 112-116
Wright, A General Framework for the Analysis of Class Structure G 116-128
Weber, Class, Status, Party G 132-142
Weber, Status Groups and Classes G 142-146
3
January 26 Theories of Stratification II: Elite & Functional Theories

Reading (67 pages):

Mills, The Power Elite G 202-212
°Domhoff, The Corporate Community, pages 15-30 & 41-43 CP (19 pages)
°Domhoff, How the Power Elite Dominate Government, pages 147-161 CP (15 pages)
Davis & Moore, Some Principles of Stratification G 55-65
Tumin, Some Principles of Stratification: A Critical Analysis G 65-73
Inequality by Design G 73-76

February 2 Occupational Prestige (and other class measurement issues)

Reading (38 pages):

Blau & Duncan, Measuring the Status of Occupations G 255-259
Trieman, Occupational Prestige in Comparative Perspective G 260-263
*Jacobs and Powell, Occupational Prestige: A Sex-Neutral Concept? CP (11 pages)
Goldthorpe and Hope, Occupational Grading & Occupational Prestige G 264-271
+
Davis & Robinson, Class Identification of Men and Women in the 1970s
and 1980s CP (10 pages)

****************Paper Topic & Four References Due****************

February 9 Class Mobility and Status Attainment

Reading (89 pages):

Sorokin, Social and Cultural Mobility G 303-308
Lipset et al., Social Mobility in Industrial Society G 309-318
Gottschalk et al., Inequality, Income Growth, and Mobility G 373-377
Gottschalk et al., The Dynamics and Intergenerational Transmission G 378-389
of Poverty and Welfare Participation
Blau et al., The Process of Stratification G 390-403
MacLeod, Ain’t No Makin’ It G 421-434
*Lareau, Invisible Inequality CP (29 pages)

************************Exam 1 Questions Distributed************************

February 16 Education

Reading (142 pages):

Kozol, Savage Inequalities, Chps 2 & 6 K (70 pages)
*Condron & Roscigno, Disparities Within CP (19 pages)
*Downey et al., Are Schools the Great Equalizer? CP (23 pages)
+
Buchmann, Family Structure, Parental Perceptions, and Child Labor CP (30 pages)
in Kenya

*******************Three Page Summary & Eight References Due****************

4
February 23 Individual Meetings

No Reading
Meet individually with Dr. Kane about your papers
Turn in Exam 1

****************************Exam 1 Due******************************

Mar 2 Race & Ethnicity

Reading (85 pages):

Bonacich, A Theory of Ethnic Antagonism G 555-568
Portes & Manning, The Immigrant Enclave G 568-579
Liberson, A Piece of the Pie G 580-592
Wilson, The Declining Significance of Race G 611-623
Oliver & Shapiro, BlackWealth/White Wealth G 636-642
°Conley, From Financial to Social to Human Capital CP (27 pages)

************************March 6- 10 Spring Break************************

March 16 Race & Space—Guest Facilitator: Karen Hayslett-McCall

Reading:
Wilson, Jobless Poverty G 651-660
Massey & Denton, American Apartheid G 660-670
Other reading TBA
Readings will be handed out in class at least two weeks before hand

March 23 Gender: Occupational Segregation

Reading (96 pages):

Bielby, The Structure and Process of Sex Segregation G 703-714
*Jacobs & Lim, Trends in Occupational and Industrial Sex Segregation in
56 Countries, 1960-1980 CP (37 pages)
Reskin, Labor Markets as Queues G 719-733
°Phipps, Industrial and Occupational Change in Pharmacy CP (17 pages)
*Williams, The Glass Escalator CP (15 pages)

March 30 Gender: Wages

Reading (103 pages)

+
Marini, Sex Differences in Earnings in the United States CP (38 pages)
Marini and Fan, The Gender Gap in Earnings at Career Entry G 743-760
+
Bernhardt et al., Women’s Gains or Men’s Losses? CP (27 pages)
Kilbourne et al., Is There an Empirical Case for Comparable Worth? G 761-775
Tam, Why Do Female Occupations Pay Less? G 776-780

5
April 6 Global Stratification

Reading (84 pages):

°Kerbo, Excerpt from Social Stratification and Inequality, 4th edition. CP (24 pages)
+
Goesling, Changing Income Inequalities within and between Nations:
New Evidence CP (17 pages)
°Firebaugh, The Reversal of Historical Inequality Trends CP (16 pages)
+
Jenkins & Scanlan, Food Security in Less Developed Countries, 1970-1990 CP (27 pages)

************************Exam 2 Questions Distributed************************

************************Course Paper Due ************************

April 13 Responses to Stratification: Social Movements

Reading (123-125 pages):

Piven & Cloward, Chapter 1 and Chapter 3 or 4 PC (various pages)

April 20 Course Wrap Up

No Reading
Turn in Exam 2**********************Exam 2 Due**************************

6
 Course Paper

Each student will write a research paper on a stratification topic of his/her choice. Any topic is
acceptable as long as it deals with inequality and is a unique paper written for this course (see me if
you have questions about the acceptability of your topic). As mentioned above, there are two different
paper options: a literature review or a research proposal.

What is a literature review?

A literature review involves researching, organizing, and evaluating a body of literature (i.e., race
based wage inequality; educational tracking; Marxist feminism; experiences of the upwardly mobile).
You will not answer a specific question (i.e., why do women earn less than men?). Instead, you will
describe what existing research has to say about a specific topic (i.e. the causes of the gender gap in
pay) and what issues still need to be addressed. While you do not need to read and cite every article
ever written about your topic, your paper must provide a representative sample of existing research.
Do not just rely on the work of a few. Also keep in mind your literature review should not be a
laundry list of articles/studies. Instead, you should organize the review around themes/explanations
and use particular studies as the citations/evidence for those themes. [Articles in the Annual Review of
Sociology are good examples of literature reviews, though on broader topics than you should choose.]

What is a research proposal?

A research proposal has two parts. It begins with a brief literature review in which you describe the
existing research on your topic (similar to the literature review option, but much shorter & narrower)
and describe the one or two unanswered questions that your project will address. The second part is a
methodology section in which you describe how your project will address this problem empirically
(i.e., who or what you will study; how data will be collected and analyzed) and the strengths and
weaknesses of your research design. This requires both substantive sources (for the literature review)
as well as methodology sources to back up your particular research strategy. While the actual research
will not be done for this course, it must be a realistic project that could be carried out in another
semester if you so chose. (I encourage those that have not had a research design or methods course to
choose the literature review option.) [Journal articles, up to the results sections, are good examples of
what research proposals should include.]

During the semester, you will hand in two, smaller assignments to get you started on the paper. On
February 2nd, you need to hand in a description of your paper (no more than ½ a page) and four
scholarly references (i.e., articles from academic journals, books written by academics). If you are
doing a literature review, your description should explain the substantive area you intend to
investigate. For research proposals, your description must include both the substantive area you plan
to study and a description of the methodology you plan to use.

The second assignment, due February 16th, is a three page, double-spaced version your paper with
eight scholarly references. At this point, you should be further along on your paper so the summary
should be more detailed and concrete. Students will meet with me individually the week of February
23rd to discuss their summaries and papers more generally.

7
Evaluation & Format of Final Paper

The final version of the paper is due April 6th in class. Each paper should be between 12-15 pages (not
including references), typed, double-spaced, with 10-12 point font. The paper length is firm; I will
stop reading the paper after 15 pages.

You will be graded on writing quality as well as content. Write simply and clearly. Use correct
spelling and grammar. Organize your argument. Your discussion will be clearer to you and to me if
you write from a well-organized outline and edit your paper. Also, limit the number of direct quotes
you use; I am more interested in your summary of the literature, not a cobbling together of other
scholars’ words.

You are required to cite any ideas that are not your own. A correct citation requires you to cite the
source within the text and to include a reference page with the full citation. If you put another author’s
idea into your own words, you need to include the author’s last name and the date the article was
published (e.g., Piven and Cloward 1977). If you use the author’s exact words, those words need to
be put in quotation marks and you need to provide the author’s last name, the date of the article, and
the page number (e.g., Piven and Cloward 1977: 43). Please use the citation and reference formats
used in the American Sociological Review, found on-line and in the UTD library.

Common Mistakes to Avoid:

*Not selecting a stratification topic

*Plagiarism, usually caused by citation errors

*Over-reliance on non-academic sources

*Over-reliance on direct quotations

*Creating a laundry list of articles and findings rather than synthesizing existing literature

*Forgetting to discuss remaining gaps/unanswered questions in the literature

8
 Class Pack Bibliography

°Domhoff, G. William. 2002. “The Corporate Community” and “How the Power Elite Dominate
Government.” Pp. 15-30, 41-43, 147-161 in Who Rules America? Power & Politics. McGraw Hill.

*Jacobs, Jerry A. and Brian Powell. 1985. “Occupational Prestige: A Sex-Neutral Concept?” Sex Roles
12(9/10): 1061-1071.
+
Davis, Nancy J. and Robert V. Robinson. 1988. “Class Identification of Men and Women in the 1970s
and 1980s.” American Sociological Review 53(February): 103-112.
+
Lareau, Annette. 2002. “Invisible Inequality: Social Class and Childrearing in Black Families and
White Families.” American Sociological Review 67(5): 747-776.
*
Condron, Dennis J. and Vincent J. Roscigno. 2003. “Disparities Within: Unequal Spending and
Achievement in an Urban School District.” Sociology of Education 76 (January): 18-36.

*Downey, Douglas B., Paul T. von Hippel and Beckett A. Broh. 2004. “Are Schools the Great
Equalizer? Cognitive Inequality during the Summer Months and the School Year.” American
Sociological Review 69(5):613-635.
+
Buchmann, Claudia. 2000. “Family Structure, Parental Perceptions, and Child Labor in Kenya: Who is
Enrolled in School?” Social Forces 78(4): 1349-1378.

°Conley, Dalton. 1999. “From Financial to Social to Human Capital.” Pp. 55-81 in Being Black, Living
in the Red. CA: University of California Press.

*Jacobs, Jerry A. and Suet T. Lim. 1992. “Trends in Occupational and Industrial Sex Segregation in 56
Countries, 1960-1980.” Work and Occupations 19(4): 450-486.

° Phipps, Polly A. 1990. “Industrial and Occupational Change in Pharmacy: Prescription for
Feminization.” Pp 111-127 in Barbara F. Reskin and Patricia A. Roos (eds.) Job Queues, Gender
Queues: Explaining Women’s Inroads into Male Occupations. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press.
+
Williams, Christine L. 1992. “The Glass Escalator: Hidden Advantages for Men in the ‘Female’
Professions.” Social Problems 39(3): 253-267.
+
Marini, Margaret Mooney. 1989. “Sex Differences in Earnings in the United States.” Annual Review of
Sociology 15: 343-380.
+
Bernhardt, Annette, Martina Morris, and Mark S. Handcock. 1995. “Women’s Gains or Men’s Losses?
A Closer Look at the Shrinking Gender Gap in Earnings.” American Journal of Sociology 101(2):
302-328.

°Kerbo, Harold R. 2000. Pp. 412-435 in Social Stratification and Inequality, fourth edition. McGraw-
Hill.
+
Goesling, Brian. 2001. “Changing Income Inequalities within and between Nations: New Evidence.”
American Sociological Review 66(5):745-761.

9
°Firebaugh, Glenn. 2003. “The Reversal of Historical Inequality Trends.” Pp. 15-30 in Glenn Firebaugh
The New Geography of Global Inequality. MA: Harvard University Press.
+
Jenkins, J. Craig and Stephen J. Scanlan. 2001. “Food Security in Less Developed Countries, 1970-
1990.” American Sociological Review 66(5):718-744.

10