We investigate social inequalities based on social background in the choice of the academic track among equally performing students, and how indicators derived from the rational choice framework contribute to account for such inequalities. We discuss the main theoretical concepts underpinning rational choice theory as applied to educational decisions: perceived costs, benefits, and risks of failure; relative risk aversion; and time-discounting preferences. In the empirical section, we use a unique dataset concerning the transition to different tracks in upper secondary school in a large Southern Italian region. By using various regression methods and the Karlson/Holm/Breen decomposition technique, we show that social inequalities in access to the academic track are considerable, even in recent cohorts, and that they are largely not explained by previous academic performance. Indicators linked to key concepts proposed by the rational choice theory—as measured in this study—account, as a whole, for 31% of the gap based on parental education, and for 40% of the gap based on parental occupation. The most important sources of inequalities among those this study examines are the expected benefits associated with the educational alternatives and the time-discounting preferences, while relative risk aversion and the perceived chances of success play negligible roles.
ArgentinGTriventiM (2011) Social inequality in higher education and labour market in a period of institutional reforms: Italy, 1992–2007. Higher Education61: 309–323.
2.
BallarinoGBernardiFRequenaM, et al. (2009) Persistent inequalities? Expansion of education and class inequality in Italy and Spain. European Sociological Review25: 123–138.
3.
BallarinoGPanichellaN (2016) Social stratification, secondary school tracking and university enrolment in Italy. Contemporary Social Science11: 169–182.
4.
BaroneCAssirelliGAbbiatiG, et al. (2018b) Social origins, relative risk aversion and track choice: A field experiment on the role of information biases. Acta Sociologica61: 441–459.
5.
BaroneCLuijkxRSchizzerottoA (2010) Elogio dei grandi numeri: Il lento declino delle disuguaglianze nelle opportunità di istruzione in italia. Polis (Bologna, Italy)24: 5–34.
6.
BaroneCTriventiMAssirelliG (2018a) Explaining social inequalities in access to university: A test of rational choice mechanisms in Italy. European Sociological Review34: 554–569.
7.
BaroneCTriventiMFacchiniM (2021) Social origins, tracking and occupational attainment in contemporary Italy. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies12: 441–462.
8.
BeckerGSMulliganCB (1997) The endogenous determination of time preference. The Quarterly Journal of Economics112(3): 729–758.
9.
BeckerRGlauserD (2018) Berufsausbildung, berufsmaturität oder mittelschule? Soziale selektivität beim Übergang in die sekundarstufe II in der deutschschweiz. Swiss Journal of Sociology44: 9–33.
10.
BeckerRHeckenAE (2009) Higher education or vocational training? An empirical test of the rational action model of educational choices suggested by breen and goldthorpe and esser. Acta Sociologica52: 25–45.
11.
BlossfeldHPBuchholzSSkopekJ, et al. (2016) Models of Secondary Education and Social Inequality. An International Comparison. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
12.
BoudonR (1974) Education, Opportunity, and Social Inequality. Changing Prospects in Western Society. Wiley Series in Urban Research. New York: Wiley .
13.
BourdieuP (1977) Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In: KarabelJHalseyAH (eds) Power and Ideology in Education. New York: Oxford University Press, 487–511.
14.
BourdieuP (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
15.
BourdieuPPasseronC (1990) Reproduction in Education, Society, Culture. London: Sage.
16.
BreenRGoldthorpeJH (1997) Explaining educational differentials: Towards a formal rational action theory. Rationality and Society9(3): 275–305.
17.
BreenRLuijkxRMüllerW, et al. (2009) Nonpersistent inequality in educational attainment: Evidence from eight European countries. American Journal of Sociology114: 1475–1521.
18.
BreenRvan de WerfhorstHJægerMM (2014) Deciding under doubt: A theory of risk aversion, time discounting preferences, and educational decision-making. European Sociological Review30: 258–270.
19.
BreenRYaishM (2006) Testing the Breen-Goldthorpe model of educational decision making. In: MorganSLGruskyDBFieldsGS (eds) Mobility and Inequality. Frontiers of Research From Sociology and Economics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 232–258.
20.
ChecchiDFlabbiL (2013) Intergenerational mobility and schooling decisions in Germany and Italy: The impact of secondary school tracks. Rivista di Politica Economica3: 7–57.
21.
CobaltiASchizzerottoA (1994) La Mobilità Sociale in Italia. Bologna: Il Mulino.
22.
ContiniDScagniA (2013) Social-origin inequalities in educational careers in Italy: Performance or decision effects? In: JacksonM (eds) Determined to Succeed? Performance Versus Choice in Educational Attainment. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 149–184.
23.
ContiniDTriventiM (2016) Between formal openness and stratification in secondary education: Implications for social inequalities in Italy. In: BlossfeldHPBuchholzSSlopekJTriventiM (eds) Models of Secondary Education and Social Inequality: An International Comparison. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 305–322.
24.
ElsterJ (1979) Ulysses and the Sirens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25.
EriksonRJonssonJO (1996) Can Education be Equalized? The Swedish Case in Comparative Perspective. Boulder, Colo: Westview Press.
26.
Gabay-EgoziLShavitYYaishM (2010) Curricular choice: A test of rational choice model of education. European Sociological Review26: 447–463.
27.
GambettaD (1987) Studies in Rationality and Social Change. Were They Pushed or Did They Jump?: Individual Decision Mechanisms in Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28.
GuettoRVergoliniL (2017) Educational expansion without equalization: A reappraisal of the ‘effectively maintained inequality’ hypothesis in children's choice of the upper secondary track. European Societies19: 1–27.
29.
HillmertSJacobM (2003) Social inequality in higher education: Is vocational training a pathway leading to or away from university?European Sociological Review19(3): 319–334.
30.
HolmAJægerMM (2008) Does relative risk aversion explain educational inequality? A dynamic choice approach. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility26: 199–219.
31.
JacksonM (2013) Determined to Succeed? Performance Versus Choice in Educational Attainment. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
32.
JannB (2014) Plotting regression coefficients and other estimates. The Stata Journal14: 708–737.
33.
JægerMMBreenR (2016) A dynamic model of cultural reproduction. American Journal of Sociology121: 1079–1115.
34.
KarlsonKBHolmA (2011) Decomposing primary and secondary effects: A new decomposition method. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility29(2): 221–237.
35.
KohlerUKarlsonKBHolmA (2011) Comparing coefficients of nested nonlinear probability models. The Stata Journal11(3): 420–438.
36.
LucasSR (2001) Effectively maintained inequality: Education transitions, track mobility, and social background effects. American Journal of Sociology106: 1642–1690.
37.
MüllerWKarleW (1993) Social selection in educational systems in Europe. European Sociological Review9: 1–23.
38.
ObermeierVSchneiderT (2015) Educational choice and risk preferences: How important is relative vs. Individual risk preference?Journal for Educational Research Online7: 99–12.
39.
PanichellaNTriventiM (2014) Social inequalities in the choice of secondary school. European Societies16: 666–693.
40.
RessAAzzoliniD (2014) Primary and secondary effects of social background on educational attainment in Italy. Evidence from an administrative dataset. Italian Journal of Sociology of Education6: 53–80.
41.
SchizzerottoA (1997) Perché in italia ci sono pochi diplomati e pochi laureati? Vincoli strutturali e decisioni razionali degli attori come cause della contenuta espansione della scolarità superiore. Polis, Ricerche e Studi su Società e Politica3: 345–366.
42.
SimonHA (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics69: 99–118.
43.
StockèV (2007) Explaining educational decision and effects of families’ social class position: An empirical test of the Breen-Goldthorpe model of educational attainment. European Sociological Review23(4): 505–519.
44.
TriventiMBaroneCFacchiniM (2021) Upper secondary tracks and student competencies: a selection or a causal effect? Evidence from the Italian case. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0276562421000469.
45.
TriventiMPanichellaNBallarinoG, et al. (2016) Education as a positional good: Implications for social inequalities in educational attainment in Italy. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility43: 39–52.
46.
TriventiMSkopekJKulicN, et al. (2019) Advantage ‘finds Its way’: How privileged families exploit opportunities in different systems of secondary education. Sociology54: 237–257.
47.
TriventiMTrivellatoP (2009) Participation, performance and inequality in Italian higher education in the 20th century. Evidence from the Italian longitudinal household survey. Higher Education57: 681–702.
48.
van de WerfhorstHGHofstedeS (2007) Cultural capital or relative risk aversion? Two mechanisms for educational inequality compared. The British Journal of Sociology58: 391–415.
49.
ZimmermannT (2020) Social influence or rational choice? Two models and their contribution to explaining class differentials in student educational aspirations. European Sociological Review36: 65–81.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
