Search

Background: Choice is a key part of the culture of the United States. Americans believe deeply in the personal and social usefulness of being able to make many choices. Hence, all sorts of efforts have been made to increase students' options, whether by creating many different kinds of schools and colleges, offering a great array of majors and degree programs, or allowing multiple modes of attending higher education. However, this proliferation of choices reproduces social inequality in two crucial ways. First, the provision of many options "produces" social inequality: people often make choices that do not serve their interests as well as they might wish, particularly if they are faced with many options and do not have adequate information. Second, the provision of many choices "legitimates" social inequality: the more one thinks in terms of choices in the context of a highly individualistic culture such as that of the United States, the easier it is for dominant groups to blame nondominants as creating their own troubles through feckless choices. Purpose: This paper focuses on one particularly important realm of choice--higher education--because it has come to play a central role in the transmission and legitimation of social inequality. Four higher education choices are of particular interest: whether to enter higher education, which college to attend, what major to choose, and what modality to attend college (for example, part time versus full time or in person versus online). Analyzing this choice-making process, the paper focuses on the impact of inequitable access to high-quality information. Beyond analyzing how choice proliferation and information inequity join to produce and legitimate educational inequality, the paper lays out detailed recommendations for what can be done to reduce this inegalitarian impact. Research Design: The paper draws on a wide variety of social science literatures including sociology of education, critical race theory, behavioral economics, and cognitive and social psychology. More particularly, the paper synthesizes sociology of education research inspired by Pierre Bourdieu and work drawing on critical race theory. Although there are major tensions between these two bodies of work, they can be fruitfully combined to both illuminate and overcome the ways information inequity produces and legitimates educational inequality. Recommendations: To reduce the role of information inequity in producing and legitimating educational inequality, the paper recommends four strands of change. One strand involves providing high-quality information more equitably through restructured and much more pervasive school counseling and other forms of information provision during middle school, high school, and higher education. A crucial component of this more equitable information provision is drawing on the community cultural wealth of nondominant communities. Second, it is important to design an "architecture of choice" that simplifies choice making and nudges students toward better choices by such means as simplifying the financial aid process, improving credit articulation for community college transfer students, and building guided pathways through college. A third strand involves reducing the harms of suboptimal choices by creating the means to monitor student progress and intervene when students might or actually do go off course. Finally, because suboptimal choices will still occur, it is important to enlighten student choosers and their observers about how choice making under conditions of information inequity produces and legitimates social inequality and to empower them to combat that stratified and stratifying process.

Discourses of global education, citizenship and competence have been characterising the higher education literature in recent years. The COVID-19 pandemic has both heightened the relevance of global citizenship education and presented new challenges as educators and students continue to grapple with the lasting impact and implications. This paper presents the findings of a research study which looked at the perceived learning outcomes of a 'virtual exchange' project which addressed issues relevant to global citizenship, involving students in European and Southern Mediterranean countries in online dialogue programmes. The study used quantitative and qualitative approaches to the analysis of responses to open survey questions using the quantitative tool IRAMUTEQ (Sbalchiero & Tuzzi, 2016) and focus groups. Participants perceived that their learning was happening above all through their encounters and discussions with people from different backgrounds. They reported learning to listen actively and carefully, to accept and/or respect different opinions and experiences. The findings open up possibilities for how higher education institutions might engage students in online transnational and global learning experiences—which can contribute to thinking about renewing education and societies in a post-pandemic world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents qualitative data from interviews with >100 Australian undergraduates to sociologically consider why learners used technologically mediated learning activities (TMLA). Engagement with TMLA varied with personal preference, technical aptitude, prior experience and perceived relevance to assessment. TMLA students thought facilitated, rather than distracted, from their learning aligned with personal opinions and normative expectations about 'good' communication and desirable social interactions. Students who disliked TMLA believed technologies hindered their social interactions or poorly aligned with their preferred communication style. Systemic variation in TMLA provision by the university also affected student satisfaction. Critical sociological investigation illustrating what students valued, used or avoided broadly reflects TMLAs' social embeddedness and relevance of social experience to higher education practice and satisfaction. The findings reveal practical lessons for organisations seeking to improve service delivery, or student retention. Prior socialisation not only affects student–lecturer social relationships and communication expectations, it affects individual engagement and institutional success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses the impact of the Great Recession on university drop-out rates in Italy and its effects on social inequality. The authors argue that the economic downturn may have made it more difficult for individuals from lower social backgrounds to pursue higher education, which in turn affects their future occupational status. The study finds that the recession increased the drop-out rate for all fields of study, with a slightly lower increase for single-cycle degrees. Remunerative fields were not able to protect students from the increased drop-out risk. The analysis also reveals a social gradient, with students from less advantaged backgrounds experiencing a stronger increase in drop-out rates. The authors suggest that changes in resource allocation patterns during the recession may have contributed to the challenges faced by students from disadvantaged backgrounds. [Extracted from the article]

Purpose: Higher education has experienced some significant changes over the past few years including a highly competitive landscape, use of new technology, managing COVID protocols and guiding students to resources that ensure their success. With prior research highlighting the changes in the workforce and poor working conditions of part-time faculty, this study aims to explore full-time perceptions of several employment-related variables to determine how these significant workplace changes have impacted them. Design/methodology/approach: A mixed-methods approach is used. This includes a questionnaire being sent out via e-mail to faculty at a medium-sized, public, regional university located in the USA. This was sent through two separate listservs: full-time faculty listserv and part-time faculty listserv. The questionnaire included quantitative and qualitative questions. A one-way ANOVA was used to detect significant differences between the two groups of interest for the quantitative components. The qualitative portions of the questionnaire provided deeper insights into employee perceptions of their workplace. Findings: This research uncovers some alarming trends for full-time faculty within higher education. Across several different employment variables, full-time faculty perceptions are significantly worse than part-time faculty. This includes work–family conflict, pay perceptions, compensation opportunities, online teaching experiences, overwhelming work activities, technology provided, travel funding provided, perceived satisfaction of a faculty advocate and perceived benefits of a faculty advocate. Qualitative and quantitative results support these findings and provide additional clarification as to why they have these negative workplace perceptions. Research limitations/implications: A convenience sample was used, where data was only gathered from one university. Future research could replicate finding with more universities varying in their make-up and location to determine if these results hold across the USA and internationally. Some measures did not use established scales in the literature, and some were single-item measures. Future research could replicate findings using established scales with multi-item measures to provide more confidence the results produced that are reliable and valid. Practical implications: These results suggest alarming concerns for higher education institutions regarding their full-time faculty. Human resource managers and administrators at universities should respond to "the alarm" from this research and internal employee satisfaction surveys they have conducted with their employees. Changes should be made at higher education institutions to improve employee workplace perceptions in hopes of retaining valuable employees and improving worker morale to increase productivity. The recent workplace changes and challenges for full-time faculty are negatively impacting their workplace perceptions. Social implications: As a result of full-time faculty having significantly worse perceptions across all measured employment variables than their part-time colleagues, who already had poor perceptions, the authors may see more "good" employees leaving the industry for other more lucrative options. Others may become "dead wood" in the university and engage in "quite quitting" resulting in less productivity. With the tenure process protecting professors, this may result in universities being "stuck" with many unmotivated professors and hurt the quality of educational services provided. Some professors may even act out negatively toward the university. This could damage the quality of education provided at universities and perceptions of higher education by society. Originality/value: To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first study comparing full-time and part-time faculty workplace perceptions across several variables. After previous study has highlighted the poor work conditions and perceptions of part-time faculty, this study adds to the discussion showing that significant changes in the workplace have resulted in full-time faculty now perceiving their employment to be significantly worse than their part-time colleagues. This can have significant short-term and long-term ramifications for the industry that will make it more difficult for universities to attract talented individuals to choose a career in education and retaining their best workers based on current employment perceptions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]