What Makes Sammy Run? An Empirical Assessment of the Bowles-Gintis Correspondence Theory
What Makes Sammy Run? An Empirical Assessment of the Bowles-Gintis Correspondence Theory
复制标题
是什么让萨米跑步？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1980
影响因子：
2.5
通讯作者：
D. Bills
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Michael R. Olneck;D. Bills
鲍尔斯-金蒂斯对应理论拒绝传统的解释，强调认知技能在解释教育程度和职业地位或收入之间的联系中的作用。根据鲍尔斯和金蒂斯的观点，学校主要不是为了提高或证明在技术上有效地履行职业角色所必需的认知技能;相反，学校主要是为了发展资本主义经济中社会生产关系再生产所必需的非认知特征。从他们的理论中，鲍尔斯和金蒂斯明确地提出或暗示了几个经验命题。其中包括：（a）保持相关的非认知特征不变将降低受教育年限和经济成功之间的明显关系;（B）保持认知技能的恒定测量不会降低受教育年限和经济成功之间的明显关系，除非认知和非认知特征相关;（c）学校奖励的非认知特征，例如更高的分数，与劳动力市场奖励的特征相同。与Olneck的卡拉马祖兄弟的数据，其中包括十年级班主任的评级九个人格或行为的措施，六年级的能力倾向测试成绩，十年级的英语成绩，家庭背景的措施，最初和目前的职业地位，以及1973年的收入为样本的35-59岁的男性，我们测试鲍尔斯-金蒂斯对应理论，并发现其实证预测不支持。我们的结论是，鲍尔斯和金蒂斯所称的“技术官僚-精英”成就模型的批评者，通过质疑模型的解释性和解释性前提，而不是质疑其经验预测，会更好。
The Bowles-Gintis correspondence theory rejects conventional explanations that stress the role of cognitive skill in explaining the link between educational attainment and occupational status or earnings. According to Bowles and Gintis, schools do not serve primarily to enhance or to certify cognitive skills necessary for the technically efficient performance of occupational roles; instead, they serve primarily to develop noncognitive characteristics necessary to the reproduction of the social relations of production in a capitalist economy. From their theory, Bowles and Gintis explicitly advance or imply several empirical propositions. These include: (a) holding constant relevant noncognitive traits will reduce the apparent relationship between years of schooling and economic success; (b) holding constant measures of cognitive skill will not reduce the apparent relationship between years of schooling and economic success, except insofar as cognitive and noncognitive characteristics are related; and (c) the noncognitive characteristics which schools reward, for example with higher grades, are the same characteristics the labor market rewards. Working with Olneck's Kalamazoo Brothers data, which include tenth-grade homeroom teachers' ratings on nine personality or behavioral measures, sixth-grade aptitude test scores, tenth-grade English marks, measures of family background, initial and current occupational status, and 1973 earnings for a sample of 35-59-year-old males, we test the Bowles-Gintis correspondence theory and find its empirical predictions unsupported. We conclude by suggesting that critics of what Bowles and Gintis label the "technocratic-meritocratic" model of achievement would fare better by questioning the model's explanatory and interpretive premises than by disputing its empirical predictions.