Higher sociology 2014/2015

does anyone know what the key features/strengths/weaknesses are for the Weberian theory?? can't find any good detailed answers anywhere? thanks

oh and thanks for the essay btw!

EducationEducation- this is a simplified version but its still close to full marks

is one of the most influential institutions in anyones life. It takes a child from a young age for 6 hours a day until the age of 16. It may seem like its there to teach and educate but the hidden curriculum serves a purpose of influencing the childs behaviour and making them fit for society. A form of secondary socialisation in which children are taught about the rules and values of society. Through institutional means they adopt the social policy of what is perceived as normal, for example its rude to chew in class or to call someone of authority by their first name. Compulsory state education was introduced since 1880. However many theories on education differ. The two theories I'm going to discuss are, Functionalism, and Marxism.Functionalism is a consensus theory which preaches harmony and consensus. It sees society as an organic structure with education serving as a way of placing people into different parts of the structure. Functionalists believe that education has three broad functions. The first is socialisation. Education serves as a form of secondary socialisation where young people are taught key values, such as achievement, meritocracy, and competition. Parsons believed that education formed a sort of social bridge between the family and wider society. A child's social status is defined by his family, however in wider society they're judged by criteria that apply to all of societies members. The second believed function is skills provision. Education teaches the skills required for the work place, these may be general skills such as reading and writing or more specialised skills which longer education provides. The third role of education is known as role allocation. Education allocates people to the most appropriate jobs for there talents, using examinations and qualifications as an appropriate differential for different institutions to select the best and brightest for the most suitable roles. This is seen to be fair as functionalists believe we all have an equal chance to do well but everyone makes choices and some are the wrong choices so as a result of competition the most competitive and the ones who work the hardest will through meritocracy go on and achieve a good job with a monetary incentive. However functionalists are criticised for failing to recognise the diversity of values in modern society. Functionalism also fails to recognise external factors which could limit a childs ability to get good grades. Middle class children on average do better than working class kids because they have access to better resources and have had healthier diets. Davis and Moore examined role allocation. They believe that education selects talented individuals and allocates them to the most important roles in society. Higher rewards for jobs such as GP’s and pilots encourages competition. Davis and Moore believe that education sifts and sorts according to ability.Like Parsons, Davis and Moore 1967 saw education as a means of role allocation, but they linked the education system more directly with the system of social stratification. Davis and Moore saw social stratification as a mechanism for ensuring that the most talented and able members of society are allocated to those positions that are functionally more important in society. High rewards, which act as incentives, attached to those positions. This means, in theory, that all will compete with them and the most talented will win through.Thus the education system sifts, sorts and grades individuals in terms of their talents and abilities. It rewards the most talented with high qualifications, which in turn provide entry to those occupations that are functionally most important to society.David and Moore have been criticised because the relationship between academic credentials and occupational reward is not particularly close. In particular, income is only weakly linked to educational attainment.There is also considerable doubt about the proposition that the educational system greats people in terms of ability. In particular, it has been argued that intelligence has little effect upon educational attainment.Marxist sociologists state that the education system is there to serve the interests of the Capitalists. They argue that there are two main groups in society; these are the Ruling class and the Subject class. They both have essentially different interests (the ruling class want to keep their position and keep making profits. There always is going to be an unequal relationship. The subject class is always going to be kept in their place).Marxists see schooling in a negative light. It transmits ruling class ideology and produces a passive and compliant workforce which fits the needs of capitalism. When young individuals vigorously reject education, this can prepare them for dull and repetitive low-skill jobs. This vision of the role of education is based to a certain extent on the belief that capitalism is unfair and oppressive, and that it exploits the workforce. Though, it is possible to accept some of the findings of Marxist sociologists without accepting their view of capitalism. Both Bowles and Gintis and Willis provide evidence to hold up their claims. Schools do reward hard work, conformity and obedience. And some students who learn to live with what they see as the boredom of school are prepared for the monotony of low-skill jobs.Bowles and Gintis who are Marxist sociologists say that there is a close relationship between the interactions in the classroom to those in the workplace. The education system provides the capitalists with a workforce, which has the features (personality, attitudes and values) that are most useful to them. If capitalism is to survive, it requires a solid working, docile, dutiful and extremely motivated workforce. The education system achieves this through the hidden curriculum. This refers to those things that pupils gain knowledge of through their experience of attending school, rather than the formal or official curriculum (punctuality, manners, boredom etc).They state that the education system produces a subservient workforce. They found that the grades students achieved related more to personality qualities than educational ability. Low grades were related to creativity aggressiveness and independence, while high grades were related to determination consistency, reliability and punctuality. They reject the functionalist view that those who get high qualifications and jobs do so because of their social background and because they do what they are told and work hard.Bowles and Gintis also claim that the hidden curriculum encourages acceptance of hierarchy. Schools are organised on the hierarchical principle of authority and control. This prepares them for relationships within the workplace. Teachers are the ones who give the orders; students are then expected to obey. This relates to their later experience of lack of control in the workplace. They state that pupils learn to be motivated by external rewards for example, educational qualifications. This corresponds with the workplace, workers are motivated by external rewards, a salary or wage. If the capitalists are to keep making profit they need a motivated workforce that is eager to earn a wage. They also note the fragmentation of the curriculum. This aspect of education corresponds to the fragmentation of the workforce. Bowles and Gintis believe that most jobs in factories and offices have been broken down into very specific tasks carried out by separate individuals; workers are therefore denied knowledge of the overall productive process. This therefore means that they will not have the knowledge of how to set up a rival company. In addition a fragmented and divided workforce is much easier to control.However Bowles and Gintis have been criticised mainly because they did not actually conduct any research in schools. Also some critics question how the Capitalist system survived before the introduction of the Education system, as in the past only U.C children would have the experience of attending school.In conclusion Marxism and functionalism both have two very different theories on education. Marxists see education as a form of exploitation and dominance by the dominant bourgeoise whilst Functionalists view education as a form of role allocations through which societies means and values are taught.

I feel like this is a really stupid question considering the exam is in less than a week but what is the difference between a social mobility question and a social closure question?

EducationEducation- this is a simplified version but its still close to full marks

is one of the most influential institutions in anyones life. It takes a child from a young age for 6 hours a day until the age of 16. It may seem like its there to teach and educate but the hidden curriculum serves a purpose of influencing the childs behaviour and making them fit for society. A form of secondary socialisation in which children are taught about the rules and values of society. Through institutional means they adopt the social policy of what is perceived as normal, for example its rude to chew in class or to call someone of authority by their first name. Compulsory state education was introduced since 1880. However many theories on education differ. The two theories I'm going to discuss are, Functionalism, and Marxism.Functionalism is a consensus theory which preaches harmony and consensus. It sees society as an organic structure with education serving as a way of placing people into different parts of the structure. Functionalists believe that education has three broad functions. The first is socialisation. Education serves as a form of secondary socialisation where young people are taught key values, such as achievement, meritocracy, and competition. Parsons believed that education formed a sort of social bridge between the family and wider society. A child's social status is defined by his family, however in wider society they're judged by criteria that apply to all of societies members. The second believed function is skills provision. Education teaches the skills required for the work place, these may be general skills such as reading and writing or more specialised skills which longer education provides. The third role of education is known as role allocation. Education allocates people to the most appropriate jobs for there talents, using examinations and qualifications as an appropriate differential for different institutions to select the best and brightest for the most suitable roles. This is seen to be fair as functionalists believe we all have an equal chance to do well but everyone makes choices and some are the wrong choices so as a result of competition the most competitive and the ones who work the hardest will through meritocracy go on and achieve a good job with a monetary incentive. However functionalists are criticised for failing to recognise the diversity of values in modern society. Functionalism also fails to recognise external factors which could limit a childs ability to get good grades. Middle class children on average do better than working class kids because they have access to better resources and have had healthier diets. Davis and Moore examined role allocation. They believe that education selects talented individuals and allocates them to the most important roles in society. Higher rewards for jobs such as GP’s and pilots encourages competition. Davis and Moore believe that education sifts and sorts according to ability.Like Parsons, Davis and Moore 1967 saw education as a means of role allocation, but they linked the education system more directly with the system of social stratification. Davis and Moore saw social stratification as a mechanism for ensuring that the most talented and able members of society are allocated to those positions that are functionally more important in society. High rewards, which act as incentives, attached to those positions. This means, in theory, that all will compete with them and the most talented will win through.Thus the education system sifts, sorts and grades individuals in terms of their talents and abilities. It rewards the most talented with high qualifications, which in turn provide entry to those occupations that are functionally most important to society.David and Moore have been criticised because the relationship between academic credentials and occupational reward is not particularly close. In particular, income is only weakly linked to educational attainment.There is also considerable doubt about the proposition that the educational system greats people in terms of ability. In particular, it has been argued that intelligence has little effect upon educational attainment.Marxist sociologists state that the education system is there to serve the interests of the Capitalists. They argue that there are two main groups in society; these are the Ruling class and the Subject class. They both have essentially different interests (the ruling class want to keep their position and keep making profits. There always is going to be an unequal relationship. The subject class is always going to be kept in their place).Marxists see schooling in a negative light. It transmits ruling class ideology and produces a passive and compliant workforce which fits the needs of capitalism. When young individuals vigorously reject education, this can prepare them for dull and repetitive low-skill jobs. This vision of the role of education is based to a certain extent on the belief that capitalism is unfair and oppressive, and that it exploits the workforce. Though, it is possible to accept some of the findings of Marxist sociologists without accepting their view of capitalism. Both Bowles and Gintis and Willis provide evidence to hold up their claims. Schools do reward hard work, conformity and obedience. And some students who learn to live with what they see as the boredom of school are prepared for the monotony of low-skill jobs.Bowles and Gintis who are Marxist sociologists say that there is a close relationship between the interactions in the classroom to those in the workplace. The education system provides the capitalists with a workforce, which has the features (personality, attitudes and values) that are most useful to them. If capitalism is to survive, it requires a solid working, docile, dutiful and extremely motivated workforce. The education system achieves this through the hidden curriculum. This refers to those things that pupils gain knowledge of through their experience of attending school, rather than the formal or official curriculum (punctuality, manners, boredom etc).They state that the education system produces a subservient workforce. They found that the grades students achieved related more to personality qualities than educational ability. Low grades were related to creativity aggressiveness and independence, while high grades were related to determination consistency, reliability and punctuality. They reject the functionalist view that those who get high qualifications and jobs do so because of their social background and because they do what they are told and work hard.Bowles and Gintis also claim that the hidden curriculum encourages acceptance of hierarchy. Schools are organised on the hierarchical principle of authority and control. This prepares them for relationships within the workplace. Teachers are the ones who give the orders; students are then expected to obey. This relates to their later experience of lack of control in the workplace. They state that pupils learn to be motivated by external rewards for example, educational qualifications. This corresponds with the workplace, workers are motivated by external rewards, a salary or wage. If the capitalists are to keep making profit they need a motivated workforce that is eager to earn a wage. They also note the fragmentation of the curriculum. This aspect of education corresponds to the fragmentation of the workforce. Bowles and Gintis believe that most jobs in factories and offices have been broken down into very specific tasks carried out by separate individuals; workers are therefore denied knowledge of the overall productive process. This therefore means that they will not have the knowledge of how to set up a rival company. In addition a fragmented and divided workforce is much easier to control.However Bowles and Gintis have been criticised mainly because they did not actually conduct any research in schools. Also some critics question how the Capitalist system survived before the introduction of the Education system, as in the past only U.C children would have the experience of attending school.In conclusion Marxism and functionalism both have two very different theories on education. Marxists see education as a form of exploitation and dominance by the dominant bourgeoise whilst Functionalists view education as a form of role allocations through which societies means and values are taught.