AL SOCIOLOGY RESOURCE: STRETCH NOTES - SAUNDERS VS GOLDTHORPE ON EDUCATION & SOCIAL MOBILITY
AL Sociology Resource
STRETCH NOTES ON SAUNDERS VS GOLDTHORPE ON EDUCATION AND SOCIAL MOBILITY
Peter Saunders (1996) – New Right Sociologist

Society is essentially meritocratic. His social mobility study showed that those who were
able to be upwardly mobile (i.e. move up the class system) did so. He argues absolute
mobility rates (the overall amount of movement within the class structure) demonstrate
that society is open and that there are high levels of movement within the class structure.

The best and most able take the top jobs in society. The least able take the poorest paid
jobs.

The reason the middle class do better than the working class in education and work is that
they are more able. Social mobility means the able working class leave in each generation.
This strengthens the successive generations of the middle class and weakens the working
class.

Financial Inequality is a good thing as it encourages competition and rewards talent. This is
similar to Functionalists Davis and Moore’s view that role allocation leads to inevitable and
necessary inequality.
However
 Evidence shows that a working-class person with the same qualifications as a middle-class
person will be unlikely to get the job. Thus, the working class are discriminated against in
other ways than pure ability, and educational success is not a guarantee of a top job.
 Financial inequality leads to social breakdown and restricts opportunities, thus reducing
meritocracy. For example, middle-class schools are better funded than poor, inner-city
schools under New Right marketisation policy.
 The leading UK sociologist on stratification, Neo-Weberian John Goldthorpe (2002), argues
that the mobility arguments based upon biological parentage and educational meritocracy
are ‘underdetermined’. Using mass quantitative analysis, he argues that there is too much
educationally driven social mobility to be biologically determined, and too little to be truly
meritocratic.
 Thus, he argues, relative mobility (the chances to be upwardly mobile) haven’t changed and
so education has not made society meritocratic.