SOC 220: Inequality, Mobility, and the American Dream
Precept Syllabus, Spring 2015
Sophie Moullin
Fridays, 10–10.50 and 11-11.50 AM
Location Wallace, 165
Contact
Email: smoullin@princeton.edu
Office: Wallace Hall, Room 284
Office hours: Thursday 2.30-3.30 pm, or by appointment.
Purpose
The purpose of this course is to critically engage with arguments and empirical evidence on
economic inequality and social mobility. The course is an introduction to the sociological
study of how income and wealth structure opportunities within and across generations.
However, throughout the course sociological explanations are considered alongside those
from economics. While we focus on the United States, we will often consider it in
comparative perspective.
Precept is a time for you to refine and articulate your reactions to the readings – and to learn
from those of your peers. It is also an opportunity to work through theoretical and
methodological challenges encountered in the readings. The aim is to prepare you to become
critical consumers of academic research, and public commentary and policy, related to this
issue. Precept will also help prepare you to produce your own paper on a topic of your
choosing related to economic inequality and/or social mobility. This will be due on Dean’s
Date, May 12th.
Over the semester you are required to write three brief reflection papers synthesizing the
readings for a given week. These are due by noon Thursday, the day before precept. You
may choose the weeks you wish to write on, but at least one must be completed before the
midterm exam.
1
Precept Schedule and Readings:
Week 1
February 6
No Precept
Week 2
February 13
Economic Inequality: Theory and Principles
Corak, Miles. 2013. “Income Inequality, Equality of Opportunity, and
Intergenerational Mobility.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 27 (3): 79-102.
Solon, Gary. 2008. “Intergenerational Income Mobility” in Steven Durlauf and
Lawrence Blume (eds.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd edition.
Macmillan
Krueger, Alan B. 2005. “Inequality: Too Much of a Good Thing?” in James J.
Heckman and Alan B. Krueger (eds.), Inequality in America: What Role for Human
Capital Policies? MIT Press, pp. 1-76.
Sen, Amartya K. 1997. “From Income Inequality to Economic Inequality.” Southern
Economic Journal 64 (2): 384-401
Week 3
February 20
Social Mobility: Theory and Principles
Hout, Michael. 2015. “A Summary of What We Know about Social Mobility.” Annals
of the American Association of Political and Social Science 657: 27-36.
Breen, Richard. 2004. “Statistical Methods of Mobility Research” in Richard Breen
(ed.) Social Mobility in Europe. Oxford University Press, pp. 17-36.
Blau, Peter M. and Otis Dudley Duncan. 2007. “The Process of Stratification” in
David B. Grusky and Sonja Szelenyi (eds.) The Inequality Reader: Contemporary and
Foundational Readings in Race, Class and Gender. Westview Press, pp. 428-41.
Davis, Kingsley and Wilbur E. Moore. 1945. “Some Principles of Stratification.”
American Sociological Review 10: 242-249.
Week 4
February 27
Sociological Explanations
Breen, Richard. 2005. “Foundations of a Neo-Weberian Class Analysis” in Erik Olin
Wright (ed.) Approaches to Class Analysis. Cambridge University Press, pp. 31-50.
Erikson, Robert and John G. Goldthorpe. 1992. The Constant Flux: A Study of Class
Mobility in Industrial Societies. Clarendon Press, pp. 28-47.
DiMaggio, Paul. 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 (2): 189-201.
Grusky, David B. and Kim A. Weeden. 2006. “Does the Sociological Approach to
Studying Social Mobility Have a Future?” in Stephen L. Morgan, David B. Grusky,
and Gary S. Fields (eds.) Mobility and Inequality: Frontiers of Research in Sociology
and Economics. Stanford University Press, pp. 85-108.
2
Week 5
March 6
Economic Explanations
Becker, Gary S. 1981. A Treatise on the Family. Harvard University Press, pp. 135-66.
Solon, Gary. 2004. “A Model of Intergenerational Mobility Variation Over Time and
Place” in Miles Corak (ed.) Generational Income Mobility in North America and
Europe. Cambridge University Press, pp. 38-47
Piketty, Thomas. 2014. Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge: Belknap
Press. Chapter 11: Merit and Inheritance in the Long-Run, (and other excerpts TBA).
Selected responses to Capital in the Twenty-First Century.
Week 6
March 13*
The US in Historical and Comparative Perspective
*No Precept (In-Class Midterm Exam, March 12th)
Beller, Emily and Michael Hout. 2006. “Intergenerational Social Mobility: The United
States in Comparative Perspective.” The Future of Children 16: 19-36.
Ferrie, Joseph P. 2005. “The End of American Exceptionalism? Mobility in the United
States Since 1850.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 19: 199-215.
March 14 - 22
Week 7
March 27
SPRING BREAK
Families and Genes
Björklund, Anders and Jäntti, M. 2009. “Intergenerational Income Mobility and the
Role of Family Background.” Oxford Handbook of Economic Inequality. Oxford
University Press, pp. 491-521.
Sacerdote, Bruce. 2007. “How Large are the Effects from Changes in Family
Environment? A Study of Korean American Adoptees.” The Quarterly Journal of
Economics 122: 119-57.
Swift, Adam 2005. “Justice, Luck, and the Family: The Intergenerational
Transmission of Economic Advantage from a Normative Perspective” in Samuel
Bowles, Herbert Gintis and Melissa Osborne Groves (eds.) Unequal Chances: Family
Background and Economic Success. Princeton University Press, pp. 256-76.
April 2: One paragraph description of final paper topic due
Week 8
April 3
Demographic and Multigenerational approaches
Beller, Emily. 2009. “Bringing Intergenerational Social Mobility Research into the
Twenty-First Century: Why Mothers Matter.” American Sociological Review 74 (4):
507-528.
Tach, Laura. 2015. “Social Mobility in an Era of Family Instability and Complexity.”
Annals of the American Association of Political and Social Science 657: 83-96.
3
Mare, Robert D. 2011. “A Multigenerational View of Inequality.” Demography 48 (1):
1-23.
Clark, Gregory. 2014. “Your Ancestors, Your Fate.” Published in The New York Times
February 21, 2014.
Week 9
April 10
Differences Across Groups
Bloome, Deirdre and Bruce Western. 2011. “Cohort Change and Racial Differences in
Educational and Income Mobility.” Social Forces 90 (2): 375-395.
Isaacs, Julia B. 2007. “Economic Mobility of Black and White Families” in Getting
Ahead or Losing Ground: Economic Mobility in America published by The Brookings
Institution. Pages 70-79.
Duncan, Brian and Stephen J. Trejo. 2015. “Assessing the Socioeconomic Mobility
and Integration of U.S. Immigrants and Their Descendants.” Annals of the American
Association of Political and Social Science 657: 108-135.
Week 10
April 17
Differences Across Places
Chetty, Raj, Nathaniel Hendre, Patrick Kline, and Emmanuel Saez. Forthcoming.
“Where is the Land of Opportunity? The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in
the United States.” Quarterly Journal of Economics.
Clampet-Lundquist, Susan and Douglas S. Massey. 2008. “Neighborhood Effects on
Economic Self-Sufficiency: A Reconsideration of the Moving to Opportunity
Experiment.” American Journal of Sociology 114 (1): 107-143.
Beckfield, Jason. 2006. “European Integration and Income Inequality.” American
Sociological Review 71 (6): 964-985.
Clark, Rob. 2011. “World Income Inequality in the Global Era: New Estimates, 19902008.” Social Problems 58 (4): 565-592.
Week 11
April 24
Education
Excerpts from: Goldin, Claudia and Lawrence F. Katz. 2008. The Race Between
Education and Technology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Heckman, James J. 2006. “Skill Formation and the Economics of Investing in
Disadvantaged Children.” Science 312 (5782): 1900-1902.
Hoxby, Caroline M. and Christopher Avery. 2012. “The Missing ‘One-Offs’: The
Hidden Supply of High- Achieving, Low Income Students.” NBER Working Paper
18586.
Tough, Paul. 2014. “Who Gets To Graduate?” Published in The New York Times May
15, 2014.
4
Week 12
May 1
The Politics of Inequality and Mobility
Excerpts from: Hacker, Jacob S. and Paul Pierson. 2010. Winner-Take-All Politics.
New York: Simon and Schuster.
McCall, Leslie and Jeff Manza. 2011. “Class Differences in Social and Political
Attitudes in America” in Lawrence Jacobs and Robert Shapiro (eds.) Oxford
Handbook of American Public Opinion and the Media, pp. 552-570. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Jencks, Christopher, and Laura Tach. 2006. “Would Equal Opportunity Mean More
Mobility?” in Stephen L. Morgan, David B. Grusky and Gary S. Fields (eds.) Mobility
and Inequality: Frontiers of Research in Sociology. Stanford University Press, pp. 2358.
May 12th: Final Paper due
5
Getting the most out of precepts
Attendance:
Consistent with University policy, precept attendance is mandatory. Absences are excused
with advanced notice for illness, family emergencies, and religious holidays. In the case of
second or further absences, a short report on the readings is required.
Courtesy:
In this small-group discussion setting, it is important to keep distractions at bay. To help you
avoid distracting yourself and others, any laptops, phones and tablets used must be set on
airplane mode. Please arrive to precept on time and do not leave early.
Expectations:
Attendance and participation in precept comprises 15% of your course grade. An A grade
represents active participation in, and insightful contribution to, discussion.
Participation entails:
1. Careful reading of the assigned texts. For a productive discussion, it is essential that
each student has closely read the material assigned for that week. You should be able
to provide a concise summary of each reading. Note down points in the readings you
struggled with. This material is challenging, and we will work together in precept to
understand authors’ methods, concepts and arguments.
2. Critical thinking about the readings. Critical reading goes beyond distilling the
major arguments of a text, to questioning their basis and implications. When you
come to precept, be prepared to raise questions about and to the week’s readings.
3. A conversation. Listen carefully to others’ contributions, and respond to them
respectfully.
Questions to consider when preparing for precept:
• How do the readings relate to other readings for the week or to other readings from the
course? In what ways are they similar or different?
• How do the readings relate to the material presented in lecture? Does it illustrate a
certain point? How? Does it contradict it? In what ways?
• Are there any issues related to the readings that, in your view, remain unexplored or
insufficiently addressed?
• Do you think that the author argued his or her point well and supported it with good
evidence? If so, what are some of the examples? If not, what could the author have
done otherwise to be more convincing?
• Can you think of counter arguments that the author did not consider?
• What are some of the issues that relate to the week’s lecture or readings that still
remain unclear or puzzling to you?
6