In this article, first, we present new evidence on a specific type of compensatory advantage (CA) mechanism in educational transitions and attainment, whereby students from socio-economically advantaged families compensate the negative event of achieving poor grades by ignoring them and disproportionally moving on to the next level of education. Using two independent data sources, we focus on the attainment of an upper secondary degree and the transition from high school to university in Italy, investigating the role of parental education and social class in compensating for an early poor academic performance. Second, we develop a simulated scenario analysis to assess how much of the observed social background inequality is due to the educational outcomes of poorly performing students from high social backgrounds. The results are consistent with the notion that a CA mechanism is in place and show that the advantage of individuals with higher backgrounds over those from lower backgrounds is much larger among students with bad marks in earlier school stages. We estimate that at least one-third of the observed social background inequality in educational transitions in Italy can be attributed to the CA mechanism. This result is consistent across different outcomes, samples and birth cohorts, and is robust to a number of sensitivity checks.
BallarinoGBernardiFRequenaMSchadeeH (2009) Persistent inequalities? Expansion of education and class inequality in Italy and Spain. European Sociological Review25(1): 123–138.
2.
BargK (2012) The influence of students’ social background and parental involvement on teachers’ school track choices: reasons and consequences. European Sociological Review29(3): 565–579.
3.
BaroneCLuijkxRSchizzerottoA (2010) In praise of big numbers: The slow decline of inequalities in educational opportunities in Italy [Elogio dei grandi numeri: Il lento declino delle disuguaglianze nelle opportunità di istruzione in Italia]. Polis24(1): 5–34.
4.
BernardiF (2012) Unequal transitions: Selection bias and the compensatory effect of social background in educational careers. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility30(2):159–174.
5.
BernardiF (2014) Compensatory advantage as a mechanism of educational inequality: A regression discontinuity based on month of birth. Sociology of Education87(2): 74–88.
6.
BernardiFCebolla-BoadoH (2014a) Social class and school performance as predictors of educational paths in Spain. Spanish Journal of Sociological Research [Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas]146: 3–22.
7.
BernardiFCebolla-BoadoH (2014b) Previous school results and social background: Compensation and imperfect information in educational transitions. European Sociological Review30: 207–217.
8.
BernardiFChakhaiaLLeopoldL (2017). ‘Sing Me a Song with Social Significance’: The (Mis) use of statistical significance testing in European sociological research. European Sociological Review33(1): 1–15.
9.
BernardiFGrätzM (2015) Making up for an unlucky month of birth in school: Causal evidence on the compensatory advantage of family background in England. Sociological Science2: 235–251.
10.
BlossfeldHPBuchholzSSkopekJ, et al. (eds) (2016) Models of Secondary Education and Social Inequality: An International Comparison. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
11.
BoudonR (1974) Education, Opportunity and Social Inequality. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
12.
BreenRGoldthorpeJ (1997) Explaining educational differentials: Towards a formal rational action theory. Rationality and Society9(3): 275–305.
13.
BreenRYaishM (2006) Testing the Breen-Goldthorpe model of educational decision making. In: Mobility and Inequality. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 232–258.
14.
CarneiroPHeckmanJ (2003) Human capital policy. In: HeckmanJKruegerABFriedmanB (eds) Inequality in America: What Role for Human Capital Policies?Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, pp. 77–239.
15.
CobaltiASchizzerottoA (1993) Inequality of Educational Opportunity in Italy. In: ShavitYBlossfeldH-P (eds) Persistent Inequality: Changing Educational Attainment in Thirteen Countries. Boulder: Westview Press, pp. 155–176.
16.
ContiniDScagniA (2011) Inequality of opportunity in secondary school enrolment in Italy, Germany and the Netherlands. Quality and Quantity45(2): 441–464.
17.
ContiniDTriventiM (2016) Between formal openness and stratification in secondary education: Implications for social inequalities in Italy. In: BlossfeldHPBuchholzSSkopekJTriventiM (eds) (2016) Models of Secondary Education and Social Inequality: An International Comparison. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
18.
EriksonRJonssonJ (1996) Can Education Be Equalised? The Swedish Case in Comparative Perspective. Boulder: Westview Press.
19.
EriksonRGoldthorpeJJacksonM, et al. (2005) On class differentials in educational attainment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America102(27): 9730–9733.
20.
ErolaJKilpi-JakonenE (eds) (2017) Social Inequalities Across the Generations: The Role of Compensation and Multiplication in Resource Accumulation. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
21.
Gabay-EgoziLShavitYYaishM (2010) Curricular choice: A test of a rational choice model of education. European Sociological Review26(4): 447–463.
22.
GambettaD (1987) Were They Pushed or Did They Jump?Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
GoldthorpeJH (1996) Class analysis and the reorientation of class theory: The case of persisting differentials in educational attainment. British Journal of Sociology481–505.
24.
GrätzMBernardiF (2017) Parental responses to disadvantageous life events: the month of birth penalty in England. In: ErolaJKilpi-JakonenE (eds) Social Inequalities Across the Generations: The Role of Compensation and Multiplication in Resource Accumulation. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
25.
GraubardBIKornEL (1999) Predictive margins with survey data. Biometrics55(2): 652–659.
26.
GuettoRVergoliniL (2017) Educational expansion without equalisation: A reappraisal of the ‘Effectively Maintained Inequality’ hypothesis in children’s choice of the upper secondary track. European Societies19(1): 1–27.
27.
HartlaubVSchneiderT (2012) Educational choice and risk aversion: How Important Is structural vs. individual risk aversion?SOEPpaper 433.
28.
HillCJBloomHSBlackARLipseyMW (2008). Empirical benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes in research. Child Development Perspectives2(3): 172–177.
29.
IARD (2000) Quinta indagine IARD sulla condizione giovanile in Italia[Fifth IARD Survey on the condition of Italian youth]. Franco Brambilla: Istituto IARD. (http://www.istitutoiard.org).
30.
INVALSI–SNV (2014) Rilevazione nazionale degli apprendimenti 2013-2014: Rapporto risultati[National Assessment of Student Learning in Italian School, 2013–14]. Roma: Istituto Nazionale per la Valutazione del Sistema Educativo di Istruzione e Formazione.
31.
ISTAT (2011) Survey on the Study Paths and Work of Graduates[Indagine sui Percorsi di Studio e Lavoro dei Diplomati]. Rome: Istituto Nazionale di Statistica.
32.
ISTAT (2015) Indagine sui percorsi di studio e di lavoro dei diplomati[Survey of of High School Graduates]. Rome: Istituto nazionale di statistica.
33.
JacksonM (ed) (2013) Determined to Succeed? Performance versus Choice in Educational Attainment. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
34.
JacksonMEriksonRGoldthorpeJ H, et al. (2007) Primary and secondary effects in class differentials in educational attainment. The transition to A-level courses in England and Wales. Acta Sociologica50(3): 211–229.
35.
LucasSR (2001) Effectively maintained inequality: Education transitions, track mobility, and social background effects. American Journal of Sociology106(6): 1642–1690.
36.
LucasSR (2009) Stratification theory, socioeconomic background, and educational attainment: A formal analysis. Rationality and Society21(4): 459–511.
37.
MareRD (1980) Social background and school continuation decisions. Journal of the American Statistical Association75(370): 295–305.
38.
MoodC (2010) Logistic regression: Why we cannot do what we think we can do, and what we can do about it. European Sociological Review26(1): 67–82.
39.
MorganSL (2012) Models of college entry in the United States and the challenges of estimating primary and secondary effects. Sociological Methods & Research41(1): 17–56.
40.
NeedAde JongU (2001) Educational differentials in the Netherlands: Testing rational action theory. Rationality and Society13(1): 71–98.
41.
OECD (2015) Education at a Glance 2015. Paris: OECD.
42.
ShavitYMullerW (1998) From School to Work. A Comparative Study of Educational Qualifications and Occupational Destinations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
43.
StataCorp (2015) Stata Statistical Software: Release 14. College Station: StataCorp LP.
44.
TanskanenAOErolaJKallioJ (2016) Parental resources, sibship size, and educational performance in 20 countries. Cross-Cultural Research50(5): 452–477.
45.
TriventiM (2015) Social inequalities in higher education [Le disuguaglianze sociali nell’istruzione superiore]. In TrivellatoPTriventiM (eds) Higher Education: Characteristics, Functioning and Results [L’Istruzione Superiore: Caratteristiche, Funzionamento e Risultati]. Rome: Carocci, pp. 165–188.
46.
TriventiMPanichellaNBallarinoG, et al. (2016) Education as a positional good: Implications for social inequalities in educational attainment in Italy. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility43: 39–52.
47.
van de WerfhorstHHofstedeS (2005) Cultural capital or relative risk aversion? Two mechanisms for educational inequality compared. The British Journal of Sociology58(3): 391–415.
48.
WilliamsR (2012) Using the margins command to estimate and interpret adjusted predictions and marginal effects. Stata Journal12(2): 308–331.
49.
YanowitchM (1977) Social and Economic Inequality in the Soviet Union: Six Studies. White Plains: Shape.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
