234
h ps:// esea ch endsjou nal.com
Online a : h ps:// esea ch endsjou nal.com ISSN No: 2584-282X
Indexed Jou nal Pee Re iewed Jou nal
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRENDS IN EMERGING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Volume 2; Issue 6; 2024; Page No. 234-240
Recei ed: 02-09-2024
Accep ed: 06-10-2024
To he impo an pa s o educa ion include s uden s' educa ional mobili y
and success
1Basalingamma Hi ema h and 2P o . D . Mahalaxmi Joh i
1Resea ch Schola , Depa men o Sociology, P.K. Uni e si y, Shi pu i, Madhya P adesh, India
2Dean Facul y o A s HOD, Depa men o Sociology, P.K. Uni e si y, Shi pu i, Madhya P adesh, India
DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.5281/zenodo.17100278
Co esponding Au ho : Basalingamma Hi ema h
Abs ac
Social inequali y is a di ec cause o di e ences in educa ional oppo uni ies, which u he es ic s he choices open o hose who a e
al eady a a disad an age. This s udy examines he many ways ha social s a us inequali y es ic s educa ional chances. I d aws a en ion o
he ac ha some people wi h low incomes canno a o d o go o college because o he high cos o li ing. Because o his, he "educa ional
h eshold" has also inc eased, equi ing g ea e le els o educa ion o achie e he same jobs ha o me ly needed lowe le els o educa ional
achie emen . A di e si ied popula ion wi h a b oad a ie y o educa ional le els is e ealed when compa ing his coun y o o he s, e en
hough he absolu e a e o educa ional mobili y has been a he high.
Keywo ds: S uden s', Educa ional, Mobili y, inequali y and social
In oduc ion
Among he many de e minan s o social mobili y in human
socie ies, educa ion plays a pa icula ly pi o al ole in
b inging abou ad ancemen o membe s o lowe cas es,
albei i is no he only one. Educa ion mobili y is in luenced
by a numbe o ac o s, which in u n a ec people's
p ospec s o mobili y, as poin ed ou by Si a P asad. Se e al
hings a ec he educa ional mobili y o a g oup. Fac o s
such as one's amily, social ne wo k, u al/u ban upb inging,
cas e/class, and loca ion o li ing a e among he many
de e minan s. Ano he ac o ha a ec s a g oup's
co ela ion be ween a pe son's cas e a ilia ion, social
mo emen membe ship, and he p obabili y ha hey will
ge a bachelo 's deg ee, go e nmen policies, e c.
Highe educa ion oppo uni ies, in u n, inc ease he
likelihood o social mobili y. (100–101; 1987). Many
indi iduals a e pu suing deg ees in highe educa ion
because hey wan o climb he social ladde and ge he
pe ks ha come wi h i . Bu ha doesn' mean ha all
college g ads will be able o ge well-paying employmen .
"Replacemen o low-skill jobs wi h new jobs equi ing
g ea e expe ise is ac ually esponsible o only 15% o he
inc ease in educa ional equi emen s o jobs his cen u y,"
"Collins" om 1971, page 1004. The e is a se e e sho age
o employmen oppo uni ies o ecen college g adua es.
The "educa ional h eshold" has also isen because o his,
meaning ha indi iduals now need highe le els o
educa ion o a ain he same posi ions ha equi ed lowe
educa ional a ainmen le els his o ically. When discussing
inancial libe aliza ion and g ow h, Em an and Shilpi (2012)
[16] poin ed ou ha " he ise in c oss-sec ional inequali y
becomes a se ious conce n when i is p ima ily a esul o
inequali y o oppo uni y, i.e., he inabili y o child en bo n
in o poo e amilies and disad an aged social g oups o
mo e beyond hei pa en s' posi ion in economic ladde by
hei own e o and choices". "An immobile socie y may
equi e policies, public in es men s and e o ms o ensu e
bo h e iciency and equali y o oppo uni y" (ibid.) is wha
hey say u he .
Acco ding o s udies conduc ed in indus ialized na ions,
indi iduals s i e o highe le els o educa ion ega dless
o whe he i is essen ial o he ca ee s hey wan . One o
In e na ional Jou nal o T ends in Eme ging Resea ch and De elopmen h ps:// esea ch endsjou nal.com
235
h ps:// esea ch endsjou nal.com
he mos common jus i ica ions o going back o school is
he hope o landing a mo e p ominen job, e en hough
s udies ha e shown no link be ween deg ee comple ion and
solid employmen success. Con e sely, hose who a e
unable o u he hei educa ion may ind i di icul o
a ain be e -paying o mo e p es igious employmen , which
may limi hei oppo uni ies o social ad ancemen .
Income inequali y, also known as he dis ibu ion o income,
is he unequal dis ibu ion o a pe son's sala y o wages
om one pe son o ano he .
Weal h inequali y, also known as he unequal dis ibu ion o
a pe son's weal h om one owne o ano he , and
consump ion inequali y, also known as he unequal
dis ibu ion o a pe son's spending habi s, a e all
componen s o economic inequali y. You can measu e each
o hese hings be ween di e en coun ies, wi hin a single
coun y, o e en be ween di e en sub-popula ions (like
low-income, high-income, age, gende , in e gene a ional,
e c.) wi hin he same coun y o be ween di e en na ions.
Li e a u e Re iew
Ma ginson, Simon. (2018) [1]. An inc ease in bo h he
numbe and quali y o highe educa ion ins i u ions in he
Chinese ci iliza ional zone (Eas Asia) is occu ing
simul aneously wi h he g ow h o middle classes and he
a ainmen o comple e social mobili y. signi ican
imp o emen . A e hey, howe e , helping o inc ease
ela i e social mobili y and p o ide mo e equi able
oppo uni ies o kids om di e se backg ounds? The essay
akes a look a he US as an example, desc ibing how he
middle class g ew and how people could climb he
economic ladde in he '50s and '70s by u he ing one's
educa ion, only o see a decline in and educa ion dispa i y
sky ocke and social mobili y decline in he 1980s and
beyond. Can we expec o see a simila u n o e en s in
Ko ea and China?
Kea ney, Melissa e al. (2016) [3]. Lowe a es o social
mobili y a e associa ed wi h mo e economic dispa i y, as
has been shown in se e al s udies. Howe e , whe he and
how mo e inequali y causes lowe mobili y a es emains an
unanswe ed subjec . We a gue ha a d op in human capi al
in es men among low-income people could be one way
ha income dispa i y educes oppo uni ies o upwa d
mobili y. We a gue ha young people om low-income
amilies may see less alue in in es ing in hei own human
capi al i economic inequali y is high. Highe educa ed
sala y p emiums may ha e an "aspi a ional" impac ,
al hough his would coun e ac i . This p edic ion is
suppo ed by he da a: Li ing in an a ea wi h a wide
inancial dispa i y inc eases he likelihood a la ge numbe o
low-income pupils will no comple e hei educa ion. This
conclusion holds up when subjec ed o se e al es s o
con ounding a iables and checks o speci ica ions.
Rausche , Emily e al. (2014) [4]. One eason why class
immobili y is so pe asi e in Ame ican cul u e is he la ge
dispa i y in college comple ion a es be ween s uden s om
p i ileged and disad an aged backg ounds. In his a icle,
we will i s go o e he causes o college comple ion gaps
and hen p o ide asse s as one explana ion ha s a i ica ion
esea che s end o o e look. We go on o alk abou how
mino i y and low-income s uden s a e a a disad an age
when nego ia ing inancial assis ance packages due o he
long- e m e ec s o weal h dispa i y. To w ap up, we'll go
o e how kids' sa ings accoun s and o he asse -building
p og ams migh be a good way o le el he playing ield and
change he dis ibu ional e ec s o he exis ing inancial
assis ance sys em.
Somme , Nicolas e al. (2024) [5]. Adul s ha e been he
p ima y subjec s o esea ch on he impac o exposu e o
economic dispa i y in hei daily li es. Ou cen al a gumen
in his e iew is ha hese impac s a e el by s uden s in he
class oom as well. Fi s , we show ha s uden s' compe i i e
incen i es a e enhanced by economic dispa i y. Nex , we'll
ake a look a h ee majo ways his phenomenon changes
ou unde s anding o how inequali y a ec s kids' emo ional,
ela ional, and academic esul s. To begin, exam anxie y and
o he nega i e accomplishmen eelings a e p edic ed by
economic dispa i y, which may be explained by compe i i e
impulses. Bu because compe i ion makes us ne ous abou
losing and exci ed abou winning, we a gue ha inequali y
could also o e ell eelings o pleasu e in accomplishmen .
Second, economic dispa i y p edic s bo h p osocial and
an isocial beha io s, such as chea ing and ac ical
collabo a ion, and his is because people a e mo i a ed o
compe e wi h one ano he . Indeed, s uden s may eso o
chea ing o colluding in o de o boos hei ela i e
pe o mance, as a esul o compe i i eness.
To aco, Richa d. (2018) [6]. The e has been a widening
dispa i y in income ecen ly, a phenomenon known as
economic inequali y. College comple ion A ac o
con ibu ing o he expanding achie emen gap is he ac
ha a es o pupils om lowe -income homes a e lowe
han hose om highe -income ones. As he gul be ween
he lea n and he uneduca ed widens, he wo k
oppo uni ies a ailable o hose wi h less educa ion become
mo e limi ed and p o ide lowe wages. Conce ning
economic dispa i y, we s a e in his esea ch ha educa ional
inequali y, and diminished job oppo uni ies a e all pa o a
icious cycle. A e ou lining po en ial solu ions o he
cycle, i inishes by pinpoin ing p oblem a eas ha need
u he s udy and ac ion.
Resea ch Me hodology
Da a analysis
The dis ibu ion o esponden s by eligion and educa ional
achie emen is shown in Table 1. In a su ey o 777
pa icipan s, 518 (o 66.67%) iden i ied as Hindu, 231 (o
29.72%) as Muslim, and 28 (o 3.60%) as membe s o
a ious iny Ch is ian and Shiksi g oups.
Table 1: The Educa ional A ainmen s o Responden s Ca ego ised By Thei Religion
Res.Edu 4 4, Res.
Rel.
Illi e a e
P ima y educa ion o
unc ional Li e acy
High School
high School
Highe
seconda y
G adua e
G/ P D/R. D
o al
Hindu
7
32
25
73
90
226
65
518
1 35%
6 18%
4 83%
1409%
17 37%
43 63%
12 54%
66 67%
Muslim
36
66
9
41
31
30
18
231
In e na ional Jou nal o T ends in Eme ging Resea ch and De elopmen h ps:// esea ch endsjou nal.com
236
h ps:// esea ch endsjou nal.com
15 58%
28 57%
3 89%
17 74%
13 41%
12 98%
7 79%
29 72%
O he s
0
0
0
9
6
10
3
28
32 14%
21 42%
35 71%
10 71%
3 60%
To al
43
98
34
123
127
266
86
.
5 53%
12 61%
4 37%
15 83%
16 34%
34 23%
11 07%
777
De e mina ion o x2 using da a in able 1
Value
d
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pea son Chi-Squa e
184.182a
12
.000
Likelihood Ra io
182.838
12
.000
Linea -by-Linea Associa ion
27.370
1
.000
N o Valid Cases
777
is s a is ically signi ican wi h 12 deg ees o eedom a he.05 le el.
O he 777 pa icipan s, 43 (o 5.53%) we e illi e a e. 98
(12.61% o he o al) had inished elemen a y school o
unc ional li e acy. 34 (4.37% o he o al) had inished
middle school. 123 (15.83%) had inished high school. 127
(16.34%) had inished highe seconda y educa ion. 266
(34.23% o he o al) had g adua ed. And 86 (11.07% o he
o al), including he h ee wi h esea ch deg ees, had
pos g adua e o p o essional deg ees.
In a popula ion o 518 Hindus, accoun ing o 66.67 pe cen
o he o al, he e we e 7 illi e a es (1.35 pe cen ), 32 wi h
only elemen a y school o unc ional li e acy, 25 wi h
4.83% middle school comple ion, 73 wi h 14.09% high
school comple ion, 90 wi h 17.37% highe seconda y
comple ion, 226 wi h 43.63% g adua ion, and 65 wi h
12.54% esea ch o pos g adua e deg ees. All h ee o he
esea ch deg ee holde s we e Hindus.
O he 231 Muslims who made up he 29.72% o he
popula ion, 36 (15.58%) we e illi e a e, 66 (28.57%) had
only comple ed p ima y o unc ional li e acy, 9 (3.89%)
had inished middle school, 41 (17.74%) had inished high
school, 31 (13.4%) had inished highe seconda y educa ion,
30 (12.98%) had g adua ed, and 18 (3.7%) had pos g adua e
o p o essional deg ees.
The o he wen y-eigh people included bo h Ch is ians and
Sikhs, and e e y single one o hem had a high school
g adua ion o abo e. Thei deg ee le els we e as ollows:
nine (32.14%), six (21.42%), en (35.71%), and h ee
(10.71%) held ad anced deg ees.
Among men in Bagalko ’s u ban egions, his da a e eals
ha 43 (o 5.53%) we e illi e a e when hey we e 18 yea s
old. The e was no illi e acy among he o he esponden s
(including Ch is ians and Sikhs), bu 98.64% o Hindus and
84.32% o Muslims we e li e a e; in compa ison, 1.35% o
Muslims and 15.58% o Ch is ians we e illi e a e. Hindus
had he la ges sha e o g adua es a 43.62%, ollowed by
o he s a 35.71%, and Muslims a a dismal 12.99%. Hindus
also had he la ges pe cen age o hose wi h doc o a es,
mas e 's deg ees, and o he ad anced deg ees, as well as
hose who had conduc ed esea ch.
A leas 8 yea s o p ima y school educa ion was comple ed
by 81.86% o he people in ou sample. On he o he hand,
his pe cen age was 92.47%, which was in he middle o he
pack, while i was 100% among "o he s" and 56.85% among
Muslims. As a esul , o e all, Muslims had he lowes le els
o educa ion, Hindus he highes , and o he s somewhe e in
he middle. The e is e idence om he esul s o he chi-
squa e es indica e ha he null hypo hesis is alse,
sugges ing ha eligious a ilia ion in luences academic
success. Muslims a e a a disad an age in his a ea, whils
Hindus ha e he highes a es o educa ional ad ancemen
and mino eligious g oups all somewhe e in he cen e .
Educa ion and Ca ego y o he Responden s
Table 2 shows he dis ibu ion o esponden s acco ding o
hei educa ional backg ound and ca ego y.
The ollowing b eakdown o he 777 esponden s is shown
in he able: 567 (o 72.97%) we e om he gene al g oup,
96 (12.35%) we e om he OBC/MOBC ca ego y, 100
(12.87%) we e om he SC ca ego y, and 14 (1.87%) we e
om he ST ca ego y o he 567 people who said hey we e
om he gene al ca ego y, 72.97% couldn' ead o w i e,
72.69% could only ead and w i e a a basic le el, 18.17%
had inished middle school, 13.22% had inished high
school, 14.46% had inished highe seconda y, 35.62% we e
g adua es, and 14.28% had pos g adua e o p o essional
deg ees, including 3 wi h esea ch deg ees.
Table 2: The Responden s' Educa ion Dis ibu ion By Ca ego y
R Edu. 4 4,
Illi e a e
P ima y; educa ion o Func ional Li e acy
High School
High School
Highe Seconda y
G adua e
/G'cl/D
lE 0I
R Cas e
Gen.
37
72
18
75
82
202
81
567
6.52%
12.69%
3.17%
13.22%
14.46%
35.62%
14.28%
72.97%
OBC/
0
18
9
13
12
43
1
96
MOBC
18.75%
9.37%
13.54%
12.5%
44.79%
1.04%
12.35%
SC
6
8
7
32
25
18
4
100
6%
8%
7%
32%
25%
18%
4%
12.87%
ST
0
0
0
3
8
3
0
14
21.42%
57.14%
21.42%
1.80%
To al
43
98
34
123
127
266
86
777
5.53%
12.61%
4.37%
15,83%
16.34%
34.23%
11.07%
De e mine x2 using he da a in able 2.
In e na ional Jou nal o T ends in Eme ging Resea ch and De elopmen h ps:// esea ch endsjou nal.com
237
h ps:// esea ch endsjou nal.com
Value
d
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pea son Chi-Squa e
95.373a
18
.000
Likelihood Ra io
102.231
18
.000
Linea -by-Linea Associa ion
4.637
1
.031
N o Valid Cases
777
Using 18 deg ees o eedom, i is signi ican a he.05 le el.
One hund ed and nine y- h ee people (12.35%) in he
OBC/MOBC g oup epo ed di e en deg ees o educa ion:
O hem, 18 (18.75%) had me ely a p ima y o unc ional
li e acy ce i ica e, while 9 (9.37%) had a middle school
diploma., 13 (13.54%) had comple ed high school, 12
(12.5%) had comple ed highe seconda y, 43 (44.79%) had
g adua ed, and 1 (1.04%) had pos g adua e o p o essional
deg ees.
Six pe cen o he 100 SC ca ego y esponden s we e
illi e a e, eigh pe cen had comple ed elemen a y school o
unc ional li e acy, se en pe cen had comple ed middle
school, eigh een pe cen had g adua ed, and ou pe cen
had ad anced deg ees. The o e all pe cen age o SC
ca ego y esponden s was wel e pe cen .
Ou o 14 esponses (1.80% o he o al), 3(21.42%) we e
high school g adua es, 8 o hem (57.14%), had inished
hei junio yea o high school, and 3(21.42%) had a
bachelo 's deg ee o abo e.
Responden s' And Fa he s' Educa ion
Acco ding o he le el o educa ion held by he esponden s'
dads, he educa ional a ainmen s o he esponden s a e
shown in Table 3.
Acco ding o he able, 204 ou o 777 pa icipan s (o
26.25%) came om a home whe e nei he o he pa en s
could ead o w i e. A leas one pa en in ano he 47
households had inished basic school o was unc ionally
li e a e, making up 6.05% o he o al. Among he
indi iduals who we e bo n in o hese households, 65 (o
8.36%) had pa en s wi h a bachelo 's deg ee, 251 (o
32.31%) had a high school diploma, 55 (o 7.08% o he
pa en s' educa ion le el), 119 (o 15.35%) had pa en s wi h
a mas e 's, doc o a e, o doc o a e deg ee, and 36 (o 4.65%
o he o al) we e bo n in o hese households wi h a leas
one pa en ha ing ea ned such a deg ee.
A qua e o he 204 a he s who we e illi e a e, 37(18.14%)
had boys who we e also uneduca ed, while 80(39.2%) had
sons who had comple ed basic school o we e unc ionally
li e a e. Thi y-one (o 14.70%) had boys who had
comple ed high school, whe eas ele en (o 5.39%) had sons
who had comple ed middle school. Twen y- h ee (11.27%
o he o al) had boys wi h a bachelo 's deg ee o abo e,
nine een (9.31%) had sons wi h mas e 's deg ees o abo e,
and ou (1.96% o he o al) had sons wi h doc o al o
highe deg ees:
Table 3: The Educa ional A ainmen s o he Responden s A e Dis ibu ed Acco ding o he le el o Educa ion Thei Fa he s Had.
F. Edu. 4 4, R
Edu.
Illi e a e
P ima y Educa ion o Func ional
Li e acy
Middle
School
High
School
Highe
Seconda y
G adua e
G.11/(I'd
/9'd
To al
Illi e a e
37
80
11
30
23
19
4
204
18.14%
39.21%
5.39%
14.70%
11.27%
9.31%
1.96%
26.25%
P ima y
Educa ion/
5
9
11
7
15
47
Func ional
0
10.63%
19.14%
23.40%
14.89%
31.91%
0
6.05%
Li e acy
Middle
6
12
2
16
15
8
6
65
School
9.23%
18.46%
3.07%
24.61%
23.07%
12.30%
9.23%
8.36%
High School
0
1
12
60
49
102
27
251
0.39%
4.78%
23.90%
19.52%
40.63%
10.75%
32.31%
Highe
0
0
0
3
16
29
7
55
Seconda y
5.45%
29.09%
52.72%
12.72%
7.08%
0
0
0
3
17
78
21
119
G adua e
2.52%
14.28%
65.55%
17.64%
15.31%
P.G/P. D/
0
0
0
0
0
15
21
36
R. D
41.66%
58.33%
4.63%
To al
43
98
34
123
127
266
86
777
5.53%
12.61%
4.37%
15.83%
16.34%
34.23%
11.07%
Finding x2 using he da a in able 3.
Value
d
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pea son Chi-Squa e
538.222a
36
.000
Likelihood Ra io
554.587
36.000
Linea -by-Linea Associa ion
339.919
1
.000
N o Valid Cases
777
a: s a is ically signi ican wi h 36 deg ees o eedom a he.05 le el.
Fi e (10.63%) o he 47 dads who had comple ed basic
school o we e unc ionally li e a e hemsel es had kids who
had done he same. Nine een pe cen (19.14%) o he sons
had comple ed middle school, ele en pe cen (23.40%) had
comple ed high school, ou een pe cen (14.89%) had
comple ed pos seconda y educa ion, and i een pe cen
(31.91%) had comple ed college. Ou o he 65 a he s,
(8.36%) who had comple ed middle school, 6(9.23%) had
In e na ional Jou nal o T ends in Eme ging Resea ch and De elopmen h ps:// esea ch endsjou nal.com
238
h ps:// esea ch endsjou nal.com
boys who we e illi e a e, 12(18.46%) had sons who had
comple ed elemen a y school o unc ional li e acy, boys
had inished middle school o 2 (o 3.07%) o he amilies.
Among he sons, six een (o 24.61%) had jus inished high
school, i een (o 23.07%) had a ended some college, eigh
(o 12.30%) had a bachelo 's deg ee o highe , and six (o
9.23%) had no deg ee a all had ea ned a mas e 's o
doc o a e.
None o he 251 (o 32.31% o he o al) boys whose dads
had comple ed high school had any deg ee o educa ion
below ha o a p ima y school g adua e o we e illi e a e.
One son (0.39%) had only comple ed elemen a y school o
unc ional li e acy, wel e (4.78%) had comple ed middle
school, six y (23.90%) had comple ed high school, i y-
nine (19.52%) had comple ed highe seconda y educa ion,
one hund ed and en (40.63%) had comple ed bachelo 's
deg ee p og ams, and wen y-se en (3.47%) had comple ed
mas e 's o doc o al p og ams.
Ou o 55 a he s who had comple ed seconda y educa ion,
7.08% did no ha e any sons who had comple ed high
school. Among hose who did ha e sons, 5.45% had hose
indi iduals holding a high school diploma, 2.06% holding a
diploma om an ad anced seconda y school, 29 holding a
bachelo 's deg ee o abo e, and 5.72% holding a mas e 's
deg ee mas e 's o doc o a e. Th ee o he se en pos -
g adua e and p o essional g adua es (o 42.85%) had sons
who wen on o ge doc o a es. Th ee sons (2.52%) had only
a high school diploma, se en een (14.28%) had comple ed
seconda y school, eigh y- i e (65.55%) had ea ned
bachelo 's deg ees, and wen y-one (17.64%) had mas e 's o
doc o al deg ees. This means ha none o he sons o he
119 a he s who had ea ned a g adua e deg ee had an
educa ion below ha o a high school g adua e.
None o he o sp ing o Only 36 a he s (4.63%) wi h a
mas e 's o doc o a e deg ee in pos g adua e o p o essional
esea ch eally had a bachelo 's deg ee o less. Fi een dads
(41.68%) had sons who had comple ed bachelo 's deg ees,
while wen y-one dads (58.33%) had sons who had
comple ed mas e 's deg ees. Among he 777 esponden s,
219 (28.18%) emained educa ionally s a iona y, indica ing
no educa ional mobili y; 53 (6.82%) mo ed downwa ds,
indica ing lowe educa ional a ainmen s han hei a he s;
and 505 (64.9%) mo ed upwa ds, indica ing highe
educa ional a ainmen s han hei a he s.
Educa ion o he esponden s' and hei mo he
Table 4. displays he dis ibu ion o esponden s' educa ional
a ainmen s based on hei mo he 's le el o educa ion.
Among he 777 esponden s, 340 (o 43.64 pe cen ) we e
sons o mo he s who we e illi e a e, as can be seen om he
able. Among he sons o mo he s wi h unc ional li e acy a
he p ima y school le el, 71 (9.14%) we e ound. Among
he sons o hese mo he s, 109 (14.02% o he o al) had
only comple ed middle school, 167 (21.49% o he o al)
had comple ed high school, 25 (3.21% o he o al) had
comple ed seconda y school and beyond, ou o he o al, 62
indi iduals, o 7.97%, had ea ned a g adua e deg ee, while 3
indi iduals, o 0.38%, had ea ned a pos g adua e,
p o essional, o esea ch deg ee.
O he 340 illi e a e moms (43.75 pe cen ), 43 also had
illi e a e sons. O hese, 90 (26.47%) had a leas one son
who had comple ed elemen a y school o unc ional li e acy,
25 (7.35%) had one who had inished middle school, 70
(20.58%) had one who had inished high school, 50
(14.70%) had one who had inished highe seconda y, 45
(13.23%) had one who had g adua ed, and 17 (5%).
Table 4: Index o esponden s' educa ion by he educa ion o hei mo he s.
M Edu
40 R. Edu.
Illi e a e
P ima y Educa ion o Func ional
Li e acy
Middle
School
100143S
Highe
Seconda y
G adua e
CI'll
/CI'd/0'd
To al
43
90
25
70
50
45
17
340
Illi e a e
12.64%
26.47%
7.35%
20.58%
14.70%
13.23%
5%
43.75%
P ima y
Educa ion/
3
14
16
32
6
71
Func ional
0
0
4.22%
19.72%
22.53%
45.07%
8.45%
9.14%
Li e acy
Middle
0
6
3
20
20
56
4
109
School
5.50%
2.75%
18.35%
18.35%
51.38%
3.67%
14.02%
High School
0
2
3
19
33
81
29
167
1.19%
1.79%
11.38%
19.76%
48.50%
17.36%
21.49%
Highe
0
0
0
0
5
13
7
25
Seconda y
20%
52%
28%
3.21%
G adua e
0
0
0
0
0
39
23
62
62.90%
37.09%
7.97%
P.G/P. D/
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
3
R. D
100%
0.38%
To al
43
98
34
123
127
266
86
777
5.53%
12.61%
4.37%
15.83%
16.34%
34.23%
11.07%
Finding x2 using he da a in able 4.
Value
D
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pea son Chi-Squa e
363.786a
36
.000
Likelihood Ra io
416.774
36
.000
Linea -by-Linea Associa ion
241.706
I
.000
N o Valid Cases
777
wi h 36 deg ees o eedom, a: s a is ically signi ican a he.05 le el.
In e na ional Jou nal o T ends in Eme ging Resea ch and De elopmen h ps:// esea ch endsjou nal.com
239
h ps:// esea ch endsjou nal.com
None o he 71 moms (9.14%) who epo ed ha ing
comple ed elemen a y school o unc ional eading had a
le el o educa ion lowe han ha o a middle school
g adua e. 3 boys (4.22% o he o al) had comple ed middle
school, 14 boys (19.22%) had comple ed high school, 16
boys (22.53% o he o al) had comple ed uppe seconda y
educa ion, 32 boys (45.07% o he o al) had g adua ed om
college, and 6 boys (8.45% o he o al) had comple ed
pos g adua e o p o essional deg ees.
None o he 109 moms (o 14.02%) who epo ed ha ing a
seconda y educa ion o abo e had less han a basic school
diploma as well as unc ional li e acy. Th ee sons (2.75% o
he o al) had comple ed middle school, and six (5.50% o
he o al) had comple ed elemen a y school o we e
unc ionally li e a e. Ou o he o al numbe o boys, 20
(18.35%) had comple ed high school, 20 (18.35%) had
comple ed uppe seconda y, 56 (51.35%) had g adua ed,
and 4 (3.67%) had comple ed pos g adua e o p o essional
s udies. Among he 167 moms who had comple ed high
school, o 21.49 pe cen o he o al, no a single one had
comple ed elemen a y school o was illi e a e. 2 boys
(1.19% o he o al) had comple ed elemen a y school o
unc ional li e acy, 3 boys (1.79% o he o al) had
comple ed middle school, 19 boys (11.38% o he o al) had
comple ed high school, 33 boys (19.76%) had comple ed
highe seconda y educa ion, 81 boys (48.50%) had
g adua ed om college, and 29 boys (17.36%) had ea ned
mas e 's o doc o al deg ees in business, compu e science,
o a ela ed ield. (F om a pool o 29 ad anced deg ee and
p o essional A o al o h ee sons (10.34%) ecei ed
doc o al deg ees.
Ou o he 25 moms who epo ed ha ing a highe
seconda y educa ion, 3.21 pe cen had no child en wi h a
lowe le el o educa ion; 5.2 pe cen had boys who had
comple ed high school; 5.3 pe cen had sons who had
comple ed college; and 7.2 pe cen had sons who had
comple ed g adua e school. Ou o he 62 moms who
g adua ed (7.97%), no one had a deg ee below ha . O he
39 sons who g adua ed (62.9%), 23 had sons who ea ned
mas e 's deg ees o abo e (31.09%). Ou o he h ee
mo he s (0.38 pe cen ) who ha e mas e 's o doc o al
deg ees, all h ee o hei boys ha e comple ed high school.
Looking a he da a in he able, we can see ha ou o 777
esponden s, 109 (14.02%) we e educa ionally s a iona y,
meaning hey had no change in hei educa ional a ainmen s
compa ed o hei mo he . Simila ly, 14 (1.8%) had a
dec ease in educa ional mobili y compa ed o hei mo he ,
meaning hey had downwa d mobili y. Upwa d educa ional
mobili y was expe ienced by 654 esponden ’s 84.17
pe cen ), whose educa ional le el was highe han ha o
hei moms.
Conclusion
A di e si ied popula ion wi h a b oad a ie y o educa ional
le els is e ealed when compa ing his coun y o o he s,
e en hough he absolu e a e o educa ional mobili y has
been a he high. The mos signi ican implica ion o he
a o emen ioned indings is ha educa ion encou ages
upwa d social mobili y. A pe son's eligious a ilia ion, he
kind o pa en s hey own, and he educa ional, p o essional,
and inancial s a us o hei g andpa en s all ha e an impac
on hei child en's academic pe o mance in addi ion o hei
a he s' success in he wo kplace. In gene al, Muslims ha e
he lowes deg ee o educa ion whe eas Hindus ha e he
highes . Al hough i is no he sole one, educa ion is one o
he mos impo an ac o s in human cul u es ha
con ibu es o he p og ess o people om lowe cas es.
Social inequali y is a di ec cause o di e ences in
educa ional oppo uni ies, which u he es ic s he choices
open o hose who a e al eady a a disad an age.
Re e ences
1. Ma ginson S. Highe educa ion, economic inequali y
and social mobili y: Implica ions o eme ging Eas
Asia. In e na ional Jou nal o Educa ional
De elopmen . 2018;63:4–11.
doi:10.1016/j.ijedude .2017.03.002.
2. Yang J, Qiu M. The impac o educa ion on income
inequali y and in e gene a ional mobili y. China
Economic Re iew. 2016;37:110–125.
doi:10.1016/j.chieco.2015.12.009.
3. Kea ney M, Le ine P. Income inequali y, social
mobili y, and he decision o d op ou o high school.
B ookings Pape s on Economic Ac i i y.
2016;2016(1):333–396. doi:10.1353/eca.2016.0017.
4. Rausche E, Ellio W. The e ec o weal h inequali y
on highe educa ion ou comes: A c i ical e iew.
Sociology Mind. 2014;4(4):282–297.
doi:10.4236/sm.2014.44029.
5. Somme N, Claes N, Ellio A. Economic inequali y and
s uden ou comes: Wha we know and whe e o go om
he e. Mo i a ion Science. 2024;10(1):1–16.
doi:10.1037/mo 0000335.
6. To aco R. Economic inequali y, educa ional inequi y,
and educed ca ee oppo uni y: A sel -pe pe ua ing
cycle? New Ho izons in Adul Educa ion and Human
Resou ce De elopmen . 2018;30(1):19–29.
doi:10.1002/nha3.20206.
7. Ak am S, Pe aiz Z, Chaudha y A. The impac o
income inequali y and in e gene a ional mobili y on
human de elopmen : Empi ical e idence om Pakis an.
Jou nal o Economics and Sus ainable De elopmen .
2021;12(12):263–268.
8. Neidhö e G, Ciaschi M, Gaspa ini L, Se ano J. Social
mobili y and economic de elopmen . Jou nal o
Economic G ow h. 2024;29:1–28. doi:10.1007/s10887-
023-09234-8.
9. B owman A, Des in M, Kea ney M, Le ine P. How
economic inequali y shapes mobili y expec a ions and
beha iou in disad an aged you h. Na u e Human
Beha iou . 2019;3:214–220. doi:10.1038/s41562-018-
0523-0.
10. Blanden J, Doepke M, S uhle J. Educa ional
inequali y. a Xi p ep in . 2022.
doi:10.48550/a Xi .2204.04701.
11. Olupona T. The impac o educa ion on income
inequali y. Unpublished manusc ip . 2023.
12. Fi eko á E, Nezinsky E, Valacho á A. Social mobili y
as an income inequali y de e minan . DANUBE: Law
and Economics Re iew. 2022;13(3):226–239.
doi:10.2478/danb-2022-0014.
13. Muni J, Faiza M, Daud S. The impac o socio-
economic s a us on academic achie emen . Jou nal o
Social Sciences Re iew. 2023;3(2):695–705.
In e na ional Jou nal o T ends in Eme ging Resea ch and De elopmen h ps:// esea ch endsjou nal.com
240
h ps:// esea ch endsjou nal.com
doi:10.54183/jss . 3i2.308.
14. Bo gono i F, Ma coni G. Inequali y in highe
educa ion: Why did expanding access no educe skill
inequali y? Open Educa ion S udies. 2020;2(1):312–
343. doi:10.1515/edu-2020-0110.
15. Mi nik P, Cumbe wo h E, G usky D. Social mobili y
in a high-inequali y egime. The ANNALS o he
Ame ican Academy o Poli ical and Social Science.
2016;663(1):140–184.
doi:10.1177/0002716215596971.
16. Em an MS, Shilpi F. The ex en o he ma ke and
s ages o ag icul u al specializa ion. Canadian Jou nal
o Economics/Re ue canadienne d'économique.
2012;45(3):1125-1153.
C ea i e Commons (CC) License
This a icle is an open access a icle dis ibu ed unde
he e ms and condi ions o he C ea i e Commons
A ibu ion (CC BY 4.0) license. This license pe mi s
un es ic ed use, dis ibu ion, and ep oduc ion in any
medium, p o ided he o iginal au ho and sou ce a e
c edi ed.
