The first reading by Fernandez and Harris, “Social Isolation and the Underclass”, was a an interesting read in that it discusses the topic of how underclass people, those who live in poverty (actually 125% above the poverty line, since people argue that it is placed too low) may be stuck in poverty, “trapped in a permanent condition of emiseration” because of their social class acting as a barrier for personal networking and the neighborhood they are situated in. The personal, class network can be associated with homophily as well, in that the impoverished intermingle less with the “mainstream” because they do not have factors in common. “Regulars” will not intermingle with the hoodlums or wine-os. “Mainstream” are those who are steadily employed, without public assistance, and live in “stable areas”. Neighborhood effects actually worsen the conditions for the ghetto poor, with the higher levels of distrust. Once the barrier of isolation is broken then the opportunity for social mobility is available. Isolation is regarded as the rift between the impoverished and working “mainstream”. The networks of individuals are affected by whether they participate in institutions where they are connected to other people through the activities “community, political, social, social, and church” thus expanding their networks through creating ties of both weak and strong nature. The study was segmented to look at the personal networks of individuals based on structure (volume, breadth, depth) and composition (%s with partner, with no friends, with kin support, with “mainstream” friends- those who are employed, on public aid or not, and their average level of education). These were separated to show any differences. Overall, underclass effects found that nonworking poor blacks less likely to participate in any institutions, more isolated than working poor, and have less mainstream friends than people who were working poor or the nonpoor. There was an interesting difference in that females were isolated more in structure than males based on both class effects and (soon to be explained) neighborhood effects. Overall, the biggest effect because of class was on likelihood of having mainstream friends. Based on neighborhood effects, the results were similar to class effects. “Mainstream” friend composition was highly effected by neighborhood poverty.
This study was interesting in that is looked at how might dispersal of the poor into less poor areas will have an overall positive effect in decreasing poverty in the poor areas, with moving nonpoor in, and decreasing social isolation in the poor areas with the mixing, although there might be a slight increase in social isolation of the less poor areas. What I found interesting was how nonworking poor males cut ties with their kin-support relations when poverty increases, what might be the factors behind this cutting of ties. Wellman and Wortley stated the importance of having various ties because of the support and resources they provide, emotion, small and large services, financial. Could the cutting of kin-support ties as poverty increases be connected with the people having less resources to provide? By moving individuals from the poor to less poor areas and vice versa there is opportunity for isolation and social segregation to be broken down. Poor people being in contact with more affluent individuals through this neighborhood swap increases their networks. However, there is the factor of fear and distrust or resentment when mixing social neighborhoods. I often here people comment about the gentrification of West Philly because of Penn. There is the level of fear by some individuals moving into the area and resentment from the community. Through your own experiences, do you believe that Fernandez and Harris thoughts fit with Penn in West Philly?
I am a little curious about Professor Hampton’s choice of readings for this week. Usually these readings have a common theme per week. I know that the real link it about mobility and how social resources are involved, where mobility was stunted in poor communities because of the lack of social resources and element of isolation and neighbor barrier and this reading by Marsden and Hurlbert involved social resources creating mobility through the occupational world. But just the timing of the articles, this being the last class of the semester at Penn, a school situated in an arguably gentrified area, as we approach the graduation into the real world shortly. Maybe it’s the graduate school and job searches that are effecting me, but going from one reading into the next definitely sparked my interest. Anyone else catch a common theme?
Anyway, the reading by Marsden and Hurlbert reflected on ties and job searching, like so many articles mentioned since Granovetter. This study in particular replicated the job-matching study by Lin, et al. and Bridge et al. Overall, it was focusing on how job changes (occupational prestige, wages, industrial sector, firm size, possession of authority, and closeness to supervision) would have effects in social networks. Overall, the findings that were significant for all of the studies were that experience and education were a major factor for each of the job changes and confirm the other previous findings involving incidental selection bias or the absence of controls for levels of outcome variables that were immediately preceding the change. Contacts prestige is also connected with previous education and occupational prestige, in that through your education and occupational prestige you can meet contacts of greater prestige that will connect you to higher in industries. Thus, you are able to make you connections to future jobs best through the networking you do while in your previous jobs. In that, people are more in control of their social mobility through jobs than what was previously thought. How important is the “old boys network” that we read about the very first week of class?
Comments (6)
How important is the “old boys network” that we read about the very first week of class?
I find it interesting that you raise this question as someone who is about to graduate Penn and is going into the “real world”, where apparently, according to the massive emails that we get from Career Services, networking and knowing the right people at the right places seem to be key features when trying to find that ideal job. In my blog I wrote that the authors have also found that the jobs that these contacts seem to offer are very limited to the industry in which these people work in, are usually good at getting you jobs within a smaller firm and under a much supervised position. I guess in the end it really depends on what kind of job one is searching for. During our class discussions, it was said that important jobs are usually provided by close contacts. So, in order to answer your question, I think we should first decide what kind of job one is looking for: if you’re looking for something at a particular industry, in a small firm with much supervision, then the “old boys network” is the way to go.
Posted by Soo | December 5, 2006 7:36 PM
Posted on December 5, 2006 19:36
How important is the old boy network you ask, I think that it is important in terms of occupational prestige and entrance into an industry. Because homophily is a strong factor in determining the industrial sector as stated in "Social Resources and Mobility" the old boy network can allow easy access to prestigious jobs and industry access based solely on one's admittance to the old boy's network.
Posted by Anne | December 6, 2006 2:14 AM
Posted on December 6, 2006 02:14
I think you bring up an interesting question by asking whether cutting kin-support ties as poverty increases can be connected with the people having less resources to provide (for males). Although this might have some effect, I think this is more related to the fact that as poor black males rely on kin they become more isolated from the rest of the society and therefore stay as the underclass. In this case, nonworking poor black men use their kin networks as a buffer from he harsh effects of poverty as Stack suggests, and Fernandez & Harris’ findings seem to be along the same lines. For men, the kin networks are not enough to elevate their social standing and therefore this dependence on kin seems to hurt nonworking poor black men. However, in the case of females, family support seems to help the poor to be better off than they would on their own. This seems to be the reason for the fewer number of nonworking poor than working poor who rely on family. All this probably is a result of the cultural norms that make it more acceptable for females than males to rely on family.
Posted by melis (y10) | December 6, 2006 12:47 PM
Posted on December 6, 2006 12:47
How important is the “old boys network” that we read about the very first week of class?
I think that the "old boy's network" is a very important part of establishing and advancing one's career. I think that a valid reason why one attends a prestigious university like Penn, Harvard, or Yale is not only for the education, but also for the contacts that one acquires through attending these high-tier institutions. As the article mention, the prestige of the contact and the person directly help the respondent's unltimate prestige. Thus, through being a member of an old boy's network, or contacting one, an individual will associate with more prestigious and establshed contacts who will have a profound influence on getting them a job.
As we have read and discussed throughout the semester, one's weak ties and the existence of structural holes is also important in determining future chances of career networking. Thus, having perhaps multiple contacts that are part of different "old boy's clubs" would be the best way to network to a better career.
Posted by Veronique - y11 | December 6, 2006 7:45 PM
Posted on December 6, 2006 19:45
I'm not sure to what extent we can assess the "importance" of the old boys club alone, rather it must be compared relatively to other sorts of networks in order to assess its unique and defining characteristics. When contrasting the "old boys club" network with that of ghetto networks we are better able to see what resources are needed in order to make a real difference in resources in the ghetto. In order to determine how resources are mobilized and perhaps induce more intermingling of those living in ghettos with people of higher SES with more connections. I think that the question posed is made more interesting when compared to other sorts of networks like covert networks, and ghetto networks. The old boys club network is definitely helpful in obtaining jobs but I find that performance is what all in all assures retention. Comparing the abundance of resources in the "old boys network" to the absence of resources of "ghetto networks" proves to be an intriguing challenge in social policy. Perhaps network analysis could help better close the gap.
Posted by Charli-g44 | December 7, 2006 12:05 AM
Posted on December 7, 2006 00:05
I think that West Philadelphia is an excellent example of the issues examined in the Fernandez and Harris article, particularly their discussion of fear and distrustwhen mixing social neighborhoods. Up until a few years ago, University of Pennsylvania was ranked as the 4th worst relationship with their surrounding community in the world news report rankings of colleges and universities in the United States. A considerable factor in the deteriorating realtionship was due to the extensive gentrification of the residential areas that border the ever-expanding university. As more and more students move off-campus and onto Walnut and Spruce, native Philadelphians get pushed further and further west. As a result, many members of the the west philadelphia community feel a considerable degree of resentment towards both the university and its students. This also contributes to fear and anxiety in the students, who feel unsafe outside the unspoken boundaries of Penn (which are appropriately marked by security gaurds in bright yellow jackets).
In addition, through the extensive commercial development in the area (such as the addition of the shops and restaurants on 40th st., fresh grocer, and the area surrouding the bookstore), Penn has built an invisible bubble for the students, yet cutting them off from the rest of the area. As a result, the positive effects often associated with gentrification are instead percieved as efforts to seperate the university from the neighborhood. There are very few community activities aimed at integrating west philly, and it may only get worse.
Posted by Kat | December 7, 2006 9:11 AM
Posted on December 7, 2006 09:11