CEPS 2013 2014 1 2 3 4 1996 Wu 2008 1
2017. 3 2011 2008 Bourdieu & Passeron 1977 Byun et al. 2012 2017 equalizer L. Althusser Bowles & Gintis 1976 2
Raudenbush & Eschmann 2015 Alexander et al. 2007 Downey et al. 2004 ability grouping tracking Gamoran & Mare 1989 Oakes 1985 Baumert et al. 2012 Potter & Morris 2016 Bourdieu 1977 Lamont & Lareau 1988 3
2017. 3 dispositions /habitus Bourdieu & Passeron 1977 language style Swartz 1997 1. Bourdieu 1986 252 Lamont & Lareau 1988 DiMaggio 1982 4
Cultural mobility model prestigious status cultures Aschaffenburg & Maas 1997 Dumais 2006 2. DeGraaf et al. 2000 DiMaggio & Mohr 1985 DiMaggio & Useem 1978 Dumais 2002 Xu & Hampden-Thompson 2012 Byun et al. 2012 Yamamoto & Brinton 2010 Katsillis & Rubinson 1990 Robinson & Garnier 1985 5
2017. 3 Andersen & J ger 2015 Byun et al. 2012 Yamamoto & Brinton 2010 2017 Andersen & J ger 2015 PISA Marteleto & Andrade 2014 field spatial metaphor Bourdieu & Wacquant 1992 6
2002 2007 2016 Swartz 1997 7
2017. 3 1 1996 1 1998 2016 1 1996 3 17 2010 8
2017 2 9
2017. 3 Lareau 2011 3 3a 3b 3c 3d 4 2016 10
4a 4b 4c 4d 3 4 China Education Panel Study CEPS 1 CEPS 2013 2014 1 CEPS 2016 11
2017. 3 PPS 28 112 438 19487 18979 1. CEPS CEPS 1 4 3 12 0 1 0 100 2. Bourdieu 1986 1 2 1 2 CEPS 1 5 CEPS 1 0 0 1 2 0 3 CEPS 1 6 2 12 12
0 100 3. 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 1 0 4. = 1 = 1 = 0 = 1 = 1 1 = 1 2 3 1 2 3 CEPS 1 2 3 CEPS 1 2 3 8 24 CEPS 1 2 3 5 15 13
2017. 3 = 1 1 1 1 = 18979 53. 06 23. 92 0 100 48. 43 15. 10 0 100 9. 98 3. 75 0 22 241. 40 72. 88 17 438. 75 7. 31 1. 99 3 12 = 1 0. 21 0. 41 0 1 = 1 0. 18 0. 38 0 1 10. 43 3. 31 0 19 = 1 0. 12 0. 32 0 1 = 1 0. 45 0. 50 0 1 = 1 0. 98 1. 00 0 2 0. 73 0. 83 0 6 = 1 0. 17 0. 38 0 1 = 1 0. 30 0. 46 0 1 = 1 0. 47 0. 50 0 1 0. 96 0. 27 0. 14 1. 29 = 1 0. 75 0. 43 0 1 16. 78 3. 30 7 22 18. 96 3. 23 8 24 11. 34 2. 64 5 15 = 1 0. 33 0. 47 0 1 = 112 12. 26 4. 57 3. 44 33. 2 0. 74 0. 29 0 1 1 CEPS 1 2 3 10 30 14
6. 39 1. 59 0 8. 26 20. 94 4. 00 12 30 0. 21 0. 18 0. 01 0. 82 0. 45 0. 28 0. 07 0. 99 0. 19 0. 39 0 1 0. 58 0. 49 0 1 0. 23 0. 42 0 1 = 1 0. 38 0. 49 0 1 CEPS multi-level regression model school fixed-effects model y ij = β 1 Culture + n k = 2 β k X kij + α j + ε ij 1 1 y ij j i β 1 X kij j i k β k k α j ε ij y ij = β 1 Culture + β 2 X + β 3 Culture X + n k = 4 β k Z kij + α j + ε ij 2 2 y ij j i β 1 15
2017. 3 β 2 X X β 3 Z kij k β k α j ε ij school random-effects model y ij = β 0 + β 1 Culture + β 2 X + β 3 Culture X + n a = 1 ζ a Z aij + m b = 1 η b W bj + u j + ε ij 3 3 y ij j i β 0 β 1 β 2 X X β 3 Z aij a ζ a W bj b η b u j 0 ε ij 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 16
1 2 0. 001 1 1 2 2 = 1 = 1 = 1 = 1 1 2 5. 037 *** 0. 390 4. 531 *** 0. 438 2. 294 *** 0. 414 3. 210 *** 0. 314 = 1 = 1 = 1 0. 558 *** 0. 128-1. 938 *** 0. 182-1. 832 *** 0. 388-3. 375 *** 0. 301 0. 576 *** 0. 126-1. 245 *** 0. 180-0. 398 0. 387-2. 837 *** 0. 296 17
2017. 3 1 2 = 1-2. 593 *** 0. 258 0. 701 *** 0. 040 44. 730 *** 0. 743-2. 398 *** 0. 253 0. 609 *** 0. 040 41. 650 *** 0. 746 14. 53 12. 79 17. 44 17. 09 Log-likelihood - 81129. 80-80736. 22 18979 18979 + p < 0. 1 * p < 0. 05 ** p < 0. 01 *** p < 0. 001 3 3 1 2 0. 001 2 1 2 1 3 3 2 3 p < 0. 001 1 Likelihood ratio test 18
3 1 2 3 = 1 0. 780 ** 0. 260 0. 585 * 0. 260 0. 557 * 0. 260 = 1 2. 447 *** 0. 291 2. 272 *** 0. 292 2. 230 *** 0. 291 = 1 0. 541 * 0. 275 0. 453 + 0. 274 0. 387 0. 274 = 1 0. 205 0. 209 0. 064 0. 209 0. 065 0. 208 = 1 1. 050 *** 0. 086 1. 051 *** 0. 086 1. 048 *** 0. 086-0. 501 *** 0. 120-0. 462 *** 0. 119-0. 503 *** 0. 119 = 1 0. 206 0. 257 0. 212 0. 257 0. 277 0. 255 = 1-0. 974 *** 0. 197-0. 872 *** 0. 197-0. 882 *** 0. 196 = 1-2. 984 *** 0. 169-2. 917 *** 0. 169-2. 879 *** 0. 169 9. 675 *** 0. 342 9. 451 *** 0. 342 9. 479 *** 0. 341 = 1 0. 668 *** 0. 198 0. 565 ** 0. 198 0. 561 ** 0. 197 1. 065 *** 0. 027 1. 053 *** 0. 027 1. 051 *** 0. 027-0. 185 *** 0. 029-0. 201 *** 0. 029-0. 203 *** 0. 028 0. 363 *** 0. 037 0. 289 *** 0. 038 0. 289 *** 0. 038 = 1 1. 719 *** 0. 202 1. 574 *** 0. 203 1. 626 *** 0. 202 0. 046 *** 0. 005 0. 050 *** 0. 007 19. 807 *** 0. 723 19. 105 *** 0. 726 18. 756 *** 0. 882 6. 05 5. 74 5. 29 *** 11. 35 11. 32 11. 29 *** 0. 002 *** Log-likelihood - 72965. 66-72923. 95-73169. 57 18979 18979 18979 + p < 0. 1 * p < 0. 05 ** p < 0. 01 *** p < 0. 001 19
2017. 3 3 2 4 1 p < 0. 001 1 0. 04 0. 083 0. 04 + 0. 043 = 0. 083 3a 2 p < 0. 001 3b 3 4 0. 001 3c 3d 4 1 2 3 4 0. 040 *** 0. 005 0. 041 *** 0. 005 0. 042 *** 0. 005 0. 031 *** 0. 006-2. 249 ** 0. 795 0. 558 * 0. 260 0. 549 * 0. 260 0. 522 * 0. 260 2. 141 *** 0. 293-1. 067 1. 009 2. 204 *** 0. 292 2. 102 *** 0. 293 0. 446 0. 274 0. 445 0. 274-2. 156 ** 0. 750 0. 436 0. 274 0. 079 0. 209 0. 080 0. 209 0. 062 0. 209-1. 987 *** 0. 469 *** 0. 043 0. 011 0. 048 *** 0. 014 0. 043 *** 0. 012 0. 039 *** 0. 008 20
1 2 3 4 19. 483 *** 0. 733 19. 375 *** 0. 730 19. 380 *** 0. 729 19. 824 *** 0. 740 5. 76 5. 77 5. 74 5. 73 11. 32 11. 32 11. 32 11. 32 Log-likelihood - 72916. 79-72917. 93-72916. 91-72911. 92 18979 18979 18979 18979 1 2 + p < 0. 1 * p < 0. 05 ** p < 0. 01 *** p < 0. 001 4 2 1 1 2 21
2017. 3 3 3 3 5 1 p < 0. 001 1 0. 001 4a 2 p < 0. 001 4b 1 3 1 5 1 2 3 3 22
p < 0. 001 0. 049 0. 058 4c 4 0. 001 4d 5 1 2 3 4 0. 691 ** 0. 254 0. 717 ** 0. 253 0. 724 ** 0. 253 0. 731 ** 0. 253 0. 259 *** 0. 036 0. 259 *** 0. 036 0. 259 *** 0. 036 0. 260 *** 0. 036 0. 026 *** 0. 007 0. 023 ** 0. 009 0. 004 0. 010 0. 034 *** 0. 006 9. 086 5. 915 15. 959 ** 5. 531 16. 295 ** 5. 567 16. 123 ** 5. 521 + - 6. 029 3. 481-9. 176 * 3. 581-6. 221 + 3. 475-6. 025 + 3. 444 1. 108 1. 168 1. 085 1. 157-1. 248 1. 301 1. 095 1. 156 1. 950 1. 679 1. 983 1. 663-0. 993 1. 866 1. 897 1. 661 1. 761 1. 283 1. 747 1. 271 1. 676 1. 280-0. 141 1. 384 0. 113 *** 0. 029 0. 055 ** 0. 018 0. 049 *** 0. 012 0. 058 *** 0. 015 0. 033 *** 0. 010 23
2017. 3 1 2 3 4 8. 937 * 3. 537 9. 353 ** 3. 517 9. 832 ** 3. 543 8. 509 * 3. 498 4. 626 *** 0. 322 4. 581 *** 0. 319 4. 616 *** 0. 322 4. 575 *** 0. 319 11. 315 *** 0. 058 11. 318 *** 0. 058 11. 314 *** 0. 058 11. 317 *** 0. 058 Log-likelihood - 73162. 08-73165. 02-73159. 41-73164. 10 18979 18979 18979 18979 1 2 + p < 0. 1 * p < 0. 05 ** p < 0. 01 *** p < 0. 001 5 3 4 4 4 24
2013 2014 1 2 3 4 equalizer 25
2017. 3 2011 6 2008 8 1998 3 2017 1 2016 2007 6 2002 2016 4 2016 2 Alexander K. L. D. R. Entwisle & L. S. Olson 2007 Lasting Consequences of the Summer Learning Gap. American Sociological Review 72 2. Andersen I. G. & M. M. J ger 2015 Cultural Capital in Context Heterogeneous Returns to Cultural Capital across Schooling Environments. Social Science Research 50. Aschaffenburg K. & I. Maas 1997 Cultural and Educational Careers The Dynamics of Social Reproduction. American Sociological Review 62 4. Baumert J G. Nagy & R. Lehmann 2012 Cumulative Advantages and the Emergence of Social and Ethnic Inequality Matthew Effects in Reading and Mathematics Development within Elementary Schools Child Development 83 4. Bourdieu P & Jean-Claude Passeron 1977 Reproduction in Education Society and Culture. London Sage. Bourdieu P. & L. J. D. Wacquant 1992 An Invitation to Relexive Sociology. Chicago The University of Chicago Press. Bourdieu P. 1977 Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction. In Jerome Karabel & A. H. Halsey eds. Power and Ideology in Education. New York Oxford. 1986 The Forms of Capital. In J. G. Richardson ed. Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York Greenwood Press. Bowles S. & H. Gintis 1976 Schooling in Capitalist America Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life. New York Basic Books. Byun S. Y. E. Schofer & K. K. Kim 2012 Revisiting the Role of Cultural Capital in East Asian Educational Systems The Case of South Korea. Sociology of Education 85 3. DeGraaf N. D. P. M. DeGraaf & G. Kraaykamp 2000 Parental Cultural Capital and Educational Attainment in the Netherlands A Refinement of Cultural Capital Perspective. Sociology of Education 73. DiMaggio P. J. & J. Mohr 1985 Cultural Capital Educational Attainment and Marital Selection. American Journal of Sociology 90. 26
DiMaggio P. J. & M. Useem 1978 Social Class and Arts Consumption The Origins and Consequences of Class Differences in Exposure to the Arts in America. Theory and Society 5. DiMaggio P. J. 1982 Cultural Capital and School Success The Impact of Status Culture Participation on the Grades of U. S. High School Students. American Sociological Review 47. Downey D. B. P. T. V. Hippel & B. Broh 2004 Are Schools the Great Equalizer School and Non-School Sources of Inequality in Cognitive Skills. American Sociological Review 69 5. Dumais S. A. 2002 Cultural Capital Gender and School Success The Role of Habitus. Sociology of Education 75. 2006 Early Childhood Cultural Capital Parental Habitus and Teachers' Perceptions. Poetics 34. Gamoran A. & R. D. Mare 1989 Secondary School Tracking and Educational Inequality Compensation Reinforcement or Neutrality American Journal of Sociology 94 5. Katsillis J. & R. Rubinson 1990 Cultural Capital Student Achievement and Educational Reproduction The Case of Greece. American Sociological Review 55. Lamont M. & A. Lareau 1988 Cultural Capital Allusions Gaps and Glissandos in Recent Theoretical Developments. Sociological Theory 6 2. Lareau A. 2011 Unequal Childhoods Class Race and Family Life. California The University of California Press. Marteleto L. & F. Andrade 2014 The Educational Achievement of Brazilian Adolescents Cultural Capital and the Interaction between Families and Schools. Sociology of Education 87 1. Oakes J. 1985 Keeping Track How Schools Structure Inequality. New Haven CT Yale University Press. Potter D. & D. S. Morris 2016 Family and Schooling Experiences in Racial /Ethnic Academic Achievement Gaps A Cumulative Perspective. Sociological Perspective 60. Raudenbush S. W. & R. D. Eschmann 2015 Does Schooling Increase or Reduce Social Inequality Annual Review of Sociology 41 1. Robinson R. V. & M. A. Garnier 1985 Class Reproduction among Men and Women in France Reproduction Theory on Its Home Ground. American Journal of Sociology 91. Swartz D. 1997 Culture and Power The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago The University of Chicago Press. Wu Y. 2008 Cultural Capital the State and Educational Inequality in China 1949 1996. Sociological Perspectives 51 1. Xu J. & G. Hampden-Thompson 2012 Cultural Reproduction Cultural Mobility Cultural Resources or Trivial Effect A Comparative Approach to Cultural Capital and Educational Performance. Comparative Education Review 56 1. Yamamoto Y. & M. C. Brinton 2010 Cultural Capital in East Asian Educational Systems The Case of Japan. Sociology of Education 83 1. 27
JOURNAL OF 2017 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Quarterly 3 Vol. 4 Aug. 2017 PAPER The Dual Cultural Reproduction of Families and Schools A Heterogeneous Discussion about the Effects of Cultural Capital Wu Yuxiao Huang Chao & Huang Suwen 1 Abstract Based on the data from China Education Panel Survey 2013-2014 this paper analyzes the differences of the impacts of cultural capital on the middle-school students' school achievement among the stratified families and schools in China. It shows that students from families of higher socioeconomic status possess more cultural capital meanwhile the positive effects of cultural capital tend to be bigger in high-quality schools than those in low-quality ones. The findings support the Cultural Reproduction Theory rather than Cultural Mobility Model in the Chinese context. We argue that cultural capital may play a more and more important role in shaping the structure of status attainment and transmission of social inequality in China. The Pedigree of Entrepreneurs and Venture Capital Funding Li Guowu & Wang Zhenjie 28 Abstract Does a university or enterprise pedigree of the entrepreneur contribute to more possibilities for him /her to obtain venture capital Based on the status signals theory this article argues that as the uncertainty and information asymmetry the entrepreneurial popularity as an organization where an entrepreneur comes from can affect the external investors' perceptions of his quality and increase the likelihood ratio for the entrepreneur to obtain venture capital at the early stage. Our empirical study finds that both the entrepreneurial popularity and the university pedigree of the entrepreneur are significantly effective for the entrepreneur in attracting angel investors or A-round venture capital. However the influence of the entrepreneurial pedigree is more significant than the university pedigree of the entrepreneur. 242