How the `Alternative Route' By-Passed Cambridge

Abstract

In a recent issue of Sociology, Blackburn, Prandy and Stewart (1980) have offered a critique of my paper (Raffe 1979) on part-time education and the concept of the `alternative route'. My analysis used data from the Nuffield mobility study; their critique is supported with data from the General sample, which is used in a recent book by the same three authors (Social Stratification and Occupations: Stewart et al. 1980) for further analyses of part-time education and careers. They state that their critique is directed at my conceptualization rather than at my data. However, some of their criticisms are obscure, intelligible only to one who has read their book; more seriously, their critique rests upon several misrepresentations of my own argument. ¹ In replying to their critique, therefore, I find it hard to avoid recapitulating the argument of my earlier paper. Below I discuss four points of disagreement, but first a few comments on the General sample are required.