Seminar at the College of Education at Tohoku University,Sendai, Japan, July 25, 2014

Social Class and Educational Inequality
in South Korea

Kwang-Yeong Shin
Chung-Ang UniversitySeoul, Korea
E-mail: kyshin@cau.ac.kr

Contents
 Introduction
 Korean Education in a Comparative Context
 Social Class and Educational Inequality
 Data and Methods
 Results
 Conclusion

Korean Education in a Comparative
Perspective
 Korean Context- The rate of high school students who go tothe university is highest in the world. 85.6%
in 2006.
- Fierce Competition for University Entrance
Exam- Extensive Development of Shadow Education(Private After-School Education)

Educational Institutions
 General High Schools- White collar workers and the middle class71.5%
 Vocational High Schools- Supply of skilled workers for manufacturingindustry 28.5%
 High Proportion of the Private Education- High School 47.1%- University 78.7%

The Expenditure for Higher Education in 2012
10090
80
70
60
5040
30
20
100

PrivatePublicKRJPUSEGDESocial Class and Educational Inequality
 Educational Competition- The lower class parents try to make their offspring moveupwardly.
- The upper class parents try to make their offspring notmove downwardly.

- Education became a site of silent class war in thecontemporary Korean society.
 The Poor State Welfare and Gradual Erosion of Family
System  Intensification of the EducationalCompetition for Jobs

Persistent Educational Inequality
 Class Reproduction (Bowles and Gintis 1976and 2002; Breen and Goldthorpe 2002;Bourdieu 1983)
 Intergenerational inheritance of inequality(Katz and Autor 1999, Bowles, Gintis andGroves eds. 2005)
 “Family background (money and culture) is
still important in getting ahead.”Association between Class and Education
 Class Matters?
- If educational inequality persists, is it based onsocial class?
 If there is, to what extent class matters?
- Controlling the effects of other factors, is therea net class effect?
 How does class matter?

Data and Methods
 Data- Korea Education & Employment Panel (KEEP)(1-3 waves)(2004-2006)
General High School: 2000 cases
Vocational High School: 2000 cases Methods- Log-linear Model- X2(Nested Model Tests) and BIC

Type of Children’s High School by Father’s
Class
80
70
60

79.1
62.2

50
4030

37.8

CAPPB

M

F a t h e r ' s C l a ss

G en eral H S
Vocat i on alHS

20.9

20
100

54.5
45.5

51.8
48.2

W

Transition after High School by HighSchool Types
70

65.6

60
50
40

3365. 7. 930
2 02 1 . 71027.412.7

0G en eral
HSVo c a t i o n a l
HSS t op
2 yr s C o l
4 yr s U n i

Choices of High School Graduates byFather’s Class
70
63.2

60
50

53.8
47.3

42.9

40
30
2027.55. 2
22 .32. 9
22.5
2230.1
27.2

14.3

100CAPPBMWS t op
2 yr C ol .
4 yr Un i .

Log-Linear Model logF(ijkl) = μ+μe(i) +μc(j) +μh(k) +μu(l)+μec(ij) +μeh(ik) +μeu(il) +μch(jk)+μcu(jl) +μhu(kl)+ μech(ijk)+ μecu(ijm)+ μehu(ikl) + μchu(jkl) + μechu(ijkl)
 Where ∑μe(i) =∑μc(j) = ∑μh(k) = ∑μu(l)= ∑μec(ij) =μeh(ik) =∑μeu(il) =∑μch(jk)= ∑μcu(jl) =∑μhu(kl) = ∑ μech(ijk)= ∑ μecu(ijm) =∑ μehu(ikl) =∑ μchu(jkl)= ∑μechu(ijkl) = 0.

A Model for Analysis
Parental Generation

Filial Generation

Parent's Education (E)↓↘
↘
↓High School (H) → University (U)↓↗
↗
Parents' Class Position (C)Odds and Odds Ratio General HS. versus Vocational HS.
Odds
Total
MaleFemale- CAP= 1.6455
1.65981.6235- PB= .929
.9506
.9048
- M
= 3.789
3.65223.0000- WC= .8256.8497.8164
Odds Ratio Total
MaleFemale
CAP : M = .434
.4545
.5412
PB: M
= .245.2603.3010
WC: M= .217
.2327
.2721

(continued)
 University or College versus High School OnlyOddsTotal
MaleFemale- CAP= 1.167
1.3455.9911- PB= .8975
.9506
.8410
- M
=1.7174
1.54762.000- W= .7500
1.0275.6546
Odds Ratio
CAP: M
PB: M
W: M= .6797= .5226= .4376

.8694
.6142
.6639

.4955
.4204
.3273

(continued)
 University versus High School Only
Odds
Total
Male
- CAP
=2.40612.8462- PB=1.72142.1552- M=2.8047
2.3636- W=1.4258
1.6863
Odds Ratio
CAP: M= .8579
1.2042
PB: M= .6138.9118
W: M= .5084.7134

Female2.0182
1.37673.7037
1.1720

.5449
.3717
.3164

(continued)
 College versus High School Only
Odds
Total
Male- CAP
=1.0748
1.1154- PB= .9160
1.2672- M= .6341.5273- W= .9000
1.0131Odd Ratio
CAP: M= 1.6950
2.1153
PB: M= 1.4446
2.4032
W: M= 1.4193
1.9213

Female1.0364
.6370
.8519
.7898
1.2166.7477.9271

Log-linear Models and Test Statistics===========================================================
Model
G²dfBIC--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(1) (E, C, H, U)
1549.79
63 1203.99(2) (EC, H, U)
929.0457616.97(3) (EC, CH, U)
755.4854442.61(4) (EC, EH, U)
602.2355300.34(5) (EC, CH, EH, U)
570.4752285.05(6) (EC, CH, EH, HU)
162.2550-112.20(7) (EC, CH, EH, HU, EU)
134.7646-106.75(8) (EC, CH, EH, HU, CU)
147.4444-94.07(9) (EC, CH, EH, HU, EU, CU)
125.0640-94.05(10) (EC, CH, EH, HU, EU, CU, EHU)
54.64
36 -140.96(11) (EC, CH, EH, HU, EU, CU, ECH)
121.1734-65.46(12) (EC, CH, EH, HU, EU, CU, CHU)
76.78
34 -109.84(13) (EC, CH, EH, HU, EU, CU, ECU)
100.1928-53.50(14) (EC, CH, EH, HU, EU, CU, EHU, CHU)
29.4730 -135.20----------------------------------------------------------

A Model for Analysis
Parental Generation

Filial Generation

Parent's Education (E)↓↘
↘
↓High School (H) → University (U)↓↗
↗
Parents' Class Position (C)Log-linear Models and Test Statistics (Boys)==============================================================
Model
G²
dfBIC
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(1) (E, C, H, U)
893.2563430.41(2) (EC, H, U)
523.2057 104.44(3) (EC, CH, U)
450.5854143.86(4) (EC, EH, U)
362.1955-41.88(5) (EC, CH, EH, U)
345.6052-36.43(6) (EC, CH, EH, HU)
108.61
50 -258.72(7) (EC, CH, EH, HU, EU)
97.22
46 -240.73(8) (EC, CH, EH, HU, CU)
99.34
44 -223.91(9) (EC, CH, EH, HU, EU, CU)
90.71
40 -203.16(10) (EC, CH, EH, HU, EU, CU, EHU)
56.75
36 -258.73(11) (EC, CH, EH, HU, EU, CU, ECH)
85.81
34 -163.98(12) (EC, CH, EH, HU, EU, CU, CHU)
54.77
34 -244.02(13) (EC, CH, EH, HU, EU, CU, ECU)
70.29
28 -135.42(14) (EC, CH, EH, HU, EU, CU, EHU, CHU)
31.94
30 -188.46------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Log-linear Models and Test Statistics (Girls)=================================================================
Model
G²df
BIC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(1) (E, C, H, U)
743.5563 293.20(2) (EC, H, U)
481.685774.22(3) (EC, CH, U)
411.8454
25.83(4) (EC, EH, U)
326.1755 -66.99(5) (EC, CH, EH, U)
310.1652 -61.55(6) (EC, CH, EH, HU)
107.3550 -172.94(7) (EC, CH, EH, HU, EU)
88.97
46 -239.85(8) (EC, CH, EH, HU, CU)
92.24
44 -222.29(9) (EC, CH, EH, HU, EU, EHU)
54.19
42 -246.04(10) (EC, CH, EH, HU, EU, CU)
76.23
40 -209.70(11) (EC, CH, EH, HU, EU, CU, EHU)
40.24
36 -257.10(12) (EC, CH, EH, HU, EU, CU, ECH)
73.01
34 -170.03(13) (EC, CH, EH, HU, EU, CU, CHU)
53.88
34 -189.16(14) (EC, CH, EH, HU, EU, CU, ECU)
64.05
28 -136.11(15) (EC, CH, EH, HU, EU, CU, EHU, CHU)-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Note) Model (14) is not testable due to some sampling zero cells.

Conclusion
 Family background (class and education) significantly
affects children’s educational achievement (the middleclass thesis).
 An effect of father’s class on children’s education canbe observed at the early stage of education, thetransition from secondary to tertiary education.
 There is gender difference regarding effects of family
background on children’s education in the late stage ofeducational transition from high school to university.

Conclusion (continued)
 We might get more comprehensive understanding of educational
inequality in Korea after several years as the Korea Education &Employment Panel (KEEP) survey proceeds.
 With the rise of unemployment of the university graduates after thefinancial crisis, class differentials becomes larger in the university
education. Wealthy families send their children abroad to learn
foreign language for one or two years, especially English, that iscrucial for job qualification in Korea.
 We can not account students who study abroad from the early stage.
 More than 1 percent of high school students went abroad to study.

Thank you very much.