INEQUALITIES OF THE GREEK EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM AND STUDENT ALIENATION

Inequalities of the Greek Educational System and Student Alienation
Nikos Gousgounis
Pedagogical Institute of Athens
Nikos333999@yahoo.gr
INTRODUCTION METHODOLOGICAL BACKGROUND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AN OUTLOOK ON THE GREEK CASE PARTICULARITIES OF THE GREEK CASE CONCLUSION NOTES LITERATURE IN GREEK INTERNATIONAL
INTRODUCTION
The phenomenon of inequality is very old in human societies. Every people have developed through their past. an homogenised system of values transmittable from one generation t? the other- by a way that enables us to speak about the existence of a "cultural identity" - This cultural identity seems to contradict with a stratified society but we must notice that culture is a typically qualitatif notion in the opposite of strata that appar-ently need a quantative approach in order to be studied and understood. The role of the social class for the study of society itself is considered by experts as crucial. Especially the role of education amidst different classes is revealing of their inner substance since "education plays a dual role exerting both an integrating and differentiating effect on society(1).
As the decades of our century pass, more and more young people try to test their- chances in social achievement by the means of education. The access in University seems to them the only way of evaluation. The old tradition of academic and universal studies tend to give its place to the technical training since 1960. Our civilization and especially its Western aspect. tends to what is gener-ally accepted as a form of technical civilization. In the frame of this kind of civilization and especially during the last twenty years, experts have discovered that productivity in work is directly related to educational level of workers The so-called human capital is considered as a huge reserve of wealth and various investments on it try to improve its educational level and to transform it to the so-called "cultural capital"(2). According to the French school of sociology of education much influenced in the sixties by P.Bourdieu. the cultural capital has the sense of cultural advantages stored in some individual's carreer(3). Hence. the role of education consists to certify this cultural advantages. In the meantime the inequalities do exist since "elites faced by widespread demands for equality of opportunity. have adopted new strategies to ensure their own continuity(4).
Today's youth stand in front of the following contradiction : On the one hand they are encouraged to achievement and on the other hand they face the limited chances. The crucial question is : whether education transmits inequality of chances from generation to or- just acts as a vehicle of social mobility.
METHODOLOGICAL BACKGROUND
Statistics show only the final results of intergenerational transmissions (D,Bertaux)(5) The lower the degree of transmissibility of a given type of resource, the greater the necessary labor by the inheritors to acquire it. But what is the factor influencing this transmissibility? We know that in egalitarian societies, such as the most of modern western societies including Greece, the transmission of social status is not normally legitimate since achievement and attainment in job and not just ascription determine social status. Children need to re-appropriate the resources that their parents try to transmit to them, These resources are financial or cultural and some of them strictly social. Bourdieu developed in the mid-sixties and during seventies a highly influential method of elaboration primarily of the cultural factor of transmissibility and many American Sociologists tried to measure with statistical models its impact. In American society that is highly competitive before being class formatted(6). Thus the concept of Bourdieu's cultural capital that is linguistic and cultural competence was assumed by the American Sociologists as a Status attainment process factor.(7)
Hence, what is exactly the cultural capital?, And what is its connection with the Weberian notion of status? If we follow the Weberian typology then we must admit that a class does not constitute in itself a group(8) since class position is impersonal and the market (and its processes) knows no personal distinctions(9). One of the most misunderstood Weberian notion of "style of life" can clarify the connection of status to the social class. According to Weber, status is inseparable from the individual's participation in a human group and the culture of that group (that is the "style of life") that is "expected" from all these who wish to belong to the circle (10). Also, status can be seen as a quality of- an "effective claim to social esteem"'(11). So, the group can maintain its cohesion and its distance from other groups by the means of a Status culture and "the desire role of a style of life in status honor means that status groups are the specific bearers of all conventions (12).
This distinction of Weberian thought between status orders and class is quite relevant and useful for our days. A person's class position consists of causal factors influencing the individual 's life chances in a market economy (13).
In contrast stande (status groups) are normal groups an amorphous kind. Even if status honor need not n to be linked with a class situation, this situation is the predominant factor in its formations(14).
We know today, 70 years after these writings that markets and status systems correspond to that society that t.l.Haller(15) named competitive that is a combination of the most unrestricted operation of market forces, a relatively low degree of political centralization and high internal ethnic-cultural heterogeneity. The ideal typical terms of Weber that allows a tight bound of the class to status memberships are modified as follows : Even if the status groups desire many opportunities for the domination of exchanges, in a period of rapid techno economic change, this desire turns to loose since the status boundaries are eroded and push class to the fore . The opposite is noticed in periods of economic stagnation when status dominates the class and new cliques or circles tend to replace the networks and the relationships between status and class tend to differentiate.
Greek society that has undergone after the WW II a long process of urbanisation and social mobility (16), faces the claim for equality in education as a challenge of democratisation promised by politicians but the economic situation is rather in the gates of stagnation and the native labor forces have turned to the public sector gradually, leaving small hopes for an economic reanimation due to the human capital. After the above reflections, one should expect the dominance of status groups that impose a status culture more intensely than before when foreign and other capitals were invested, leading Greek economy to satisfactory rates of development. we expect status to turn more to cultural processes resulting into new social networks quite closed and seeming more as cliques or circles. These formations can influence educational and hence occupational attainment. The survival of an individual is connected to his ability to participate in a prestigious status culture. Bourdieu argued that it is in the educational system that participation in a prestigious status culture is most strongly rewarded'(17).
Where does this prestigious status culture come from? We admitted that cultural capital is loosely connected to class position. Some members of emergent status groups try to define and even institutionalize some specific cultural elements as prestigious. In these terms the status culture becomes a significant part of the educational system and through it can be refused as a model, It can create also an emulation in terms of high prestige and "vehicule" its ideology. Finally, this ideology can be crystallised as the official one, since there exists not any better adopted by the elites, In Greece most of these cultural models were adopted in the last 20 years from a combination of imported values and ideas of an everlasting " Greekness" (Ellinikotis) inherited through the centuries in a traditional way.
Our initial hypothesis has been that quantitative statistical methods measuring the flow and effluence of students who try to "inherit " their parents resources is not enough. Separate measures of status-cultural participation are necessary for addressing a number of strange findings in the stratification literature clarifying thus many obscurities. The question that rises also is whether education transists or reproduces inequality from one generation to another or if it just acts as a vehicle of social mobility.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
The definition of cultural capital is quite complicated. Itls first notion of linguistic and cultural competence in society's high-status culture(18) seems not to clarify its role related to the probable reproduction of inequalities.
According to Bourdieu and Passeron certain background inequalities are translated into differential academic rewards that lead to unequal socioeconomic rewards in a legitimate way. The function of the educational system reflecting the dominant class is to certify advantages, In addition the family transmits whatever can influence its offspring since schools do not provide techniques for decoding these cultural codes. Another definition provided by the same authors in the same book is "instruments for the appropriation of symbolic wealth socially designated as worthly of being sought and possessed". The more democratic the society. the more important the cultural capital becomes as an intervening variable.
The Bourdieu's research in French educational system.(19) found a correlation between students family background and their possession of cultural capital. Also, he found a correlation between cultural capital and educational attainment. Is that factor of cultural capital inherited directly from parents to students or does it operate as an intervening variable? That remain still obscure. Di-maggio found an effect of cultural capital in both school grades (1982)(20) and school attainment (1985)(21)' but found just a weak correlation between family background (measured by father's educational attainment) and cultural capital academic achievement. Using educational attainment itself to measure cultural capital. Robinson and Garnier(22) (1985) found than in France cultural capital had little effect in class reproduction.
This contradicts Bourdieu's findings for the same society and leads to the conclusion that this process is not of a sufficient empirical importance. As Robinson and Garnier put it in their discussion "the role of educational capital in reproducing class is much over-stated by the reproduction theory". Education plays only a small role in reproducting ownership of the means of production and control labor power. The role of formal education has been overstated and the point to which future studies must be focused is in differential class and gender socialization (23). No model or measure is the best or the most correct to represent inequa1ity of educational opportunity. Stratification theories are typically imprecise about the meaning of social mobility to impose a unique and accepted mode (24) Also the inequality of opportunity can not be measured in empirical studies, Some authors(25) conclude that cultural capital has not any direct or indirect effects in educational achievement. This last study applied in Greek society at 1988, concludes that even if social hierarchy seems to be transmitted in Greece through schooling, the real mechanisms that maintain and legitimate the process is the students ability and effort. This functionalist explication needs a systematic review and reconstruction since it takes in regard only class properties and not status groups qualities. A more systematic approach based on Weber's theory will be attempted in order to enlighten these crucial differences adapted in Greece.
But Weber's stratification theory is misunderstood especially the part related to his famous categories. His contribution in modern sociological theory has not yet been fully evaluated. These Weberian categories have been connected in a number of interrelated and analytically distinct theoretical statements (such as e.g. "life-style" of "status-society". Some aspects of stratification system may be explained by new theories giving the emphasis more to the culture than the structure.
AN OUTLOOK ON THE GREEK CASE
The example of the Greek educational system is characterised by an "educational mania"(26) of students and the consequent expansion of formal schooling. This system of education is however highly selective. Also education is free of charge from elementary school to University including also books in all of its three levels. In this case the reproduction of financial inequality seems to disappear and the work hypothesis rests if educational background plays a siqnificant role as proved in Hungary(27) and Poland (28)" that demonstrate typical socialist societies. Also whether the lifestyles or rnaterial resources are responsible for a probable inheritance of social inequalities. Our thesis is that even if the selection is annulled (for bad) in the end of High School (since after the last reforms almost every student does achieve high-school graduation) the social inequalities are preserved. According to Katsillis, differences in "academic success" reflect the inequalities associated with socioeconomic status, not parental class position. Also that class position is not reflected in students' grades- So, the class position, is not reproduced through education in opposition to Bourdieu's aspects, Also another Greek survey from 1979(29) demonstrates that place of residence has not significant effect on grades but is related rather to their educational plans. However we have to mark here, that the importance is not in. the grades but in occupational achievement- Katsillis' mistake is that he considers grades (the same as Di-maggio) as the direct and final result of academic achievement neglecting the complex inner construction of Greek society. He argues that since Socioeconomic status has a positive direct effect on grades and also probably on cultural capital,this last is not needed at all to academic achievement even more since its component, (that is parental class position) is not related to grades.
This demonstration that is supported by many regression analysis, is based on a procedure pioneered by Di-maggio a VARIMAX rotated solution to factor analyze a set of variables including high culture and other activities to determine whether the cultural capital variables clustered together. These high-culture activities reflecting cultural capital in attendance of theater and lectures as well as visits to museums and galleries (30). These are considered among the most important indicators of cultural capital in France, USA and according to the authors this appears to hold in Greece, as well. To measure all these, students were asked to indicate how many times they have attended one of the above in the last three years. These measures that are similar to those used in Project Talent test, do not include school activities.
The final conclusions are that "even if cultural capital was ever a mechanism for educational reproduction (of inequalities?) in Greece, it does not operate any more now. But this "historical" conclusion is not explained at all. Not any mention of occupational achievement since this fact is not measured in this study. Katsillis bases his argument on the indices of students' effort and ability. This enables him to speak about a highly meritocratic system neglecting totally the effect of cultural capital not necessarily on grades but on occupational achievement. Also the very well known quasi institutional Greek "shadow-education" or "parapaedia" of "Frontistiria"(31) that means private tutorial school paid by parents in order to reinforce students' achievement, is totally overpassed. When Katsillis measures the very important (as he argues) element of effort as the average time that a student spends per day on school related homework, then the role of these non-compulsary side-education institutions is crucial because the attendance of students at them, adds hours of study and ameliorates the grades in school. He admits that the direct effects that he finds of fam-tly socioeconomitc status on student grades, are difficult to explain. He adds that they may always be indirect through some other omitted interventing variable, or they may reflect some tendency of teachers to consider family background characteristics when they reward students. Our critique suggests that the only difficulty is the omittment of every aspect of parental educational level not only on the final grades but also on the occupational achievement. That means that even if some students fail to be sattsfactorily rewarded in academic terms, they can suceed in some good occupational post, using their parents' social status ("mesa" or contacts in Greek) related directly to the closed circles of Weber.
Katsillis tends to combine to apparently opposite tensions : this of achievement and that of ascription. He concludes by admitting that after all, achievement is not only academic "auto-target", but can be also occupational status,or income attainment. Further study is neseccery in order to measure its role to social mobility and eventually social reproduction.
We need now to give a profile of Greek educational selection in order to evaluate if achievement is really a matter of personal ability or effort, or if it is a result of other social and cultural parameters. First of all traditionally this system is almost exclusively geared to the testing of memory (knowledge learned by heart) and not to the testing of the ability to think critically in an original and personal way. This system however allows the hard working lower class children to suceed during the various entrance exams since the general educational level of the upper class children is not needed for the memorisation of textbooks. During the various reforms dating from 1964, the number of University students has been multiplied but the quality of education given is not ameliorated. The old "doctrine" of Boudon:(32) , "that an increase in access and schooling does not mean decrease of inequality" seems to apply very much in Greek data. During the last 28 years the entrance as well the graduation of children of lower classes has been increasing constantly and the last statistics show that 41% of University students in Greece come from lower classes (19% rural and 22% working), 35% from middle class and only 24% from upper class:(33). During all this period, no fees neither cost for books were needed since State provided thern free to the students. But the quality of education through this apparent democratisation turned to be the "unique text-book lesson" and the ambition of every student was (and still is) how to get his diploma degree the soonest possible.
However, the unemployment "waits" the university graduates more often than before. The more a person studies, the more he/she has difficulties in getting a specialised highly paid job in a stagnated economy if he/she has not the means to find a non meritocratic way of access to that job.
In studies of mid seventies it has been found that the students' grades have a correlation with fathers' educational level: (33). Also .the selection for entrance to Universities according to Greek educational system gives many chances to students to repeat the entry exams for two and more times keeping the grades of .the lesson they succeeded for the next exam! This system totally unjust for the students, who are examined for the first time, enables some students who possess the finances to enter after many years but exclude the disadvantaged. The system is not so egalitarian as it seems to be. The large number of Greek studen.ts studying abroad, reveals that the economical background of families is the main prosuposition for these special studies that need enormous expenses (almost a monthly salary of an employee in the public sector). Also the frequence of representatives of different classes in the faculties shows a "preference" of upper classes for high prestige faculties:" According to an author that presents the historical aspect of the whole evolu tion of education in Greece, 2/3 of student population frequent faculties oriented to the public sector and only 1/3 to the liberal professions (35).
The percentage of frequency in Technological institutes is low even after the increase of the number of these schools. Statistics show that the economic and cultural background of parents is analogous, that meaning that the quality of chances is not improved by the simple fact of student population increase due to Technological Institutes. This population is presented as "different" in most statistics, so we have two categories of students, those of Universities and those of Technological institutes. The prestige of Technical Education seems not to be much improved recently and a "prophecy" of a researcher in 1977 is today more true than ever (36). "Unless the educational system succeeds in upgrading to an impressive extent the prestige of vocational education and unless aptitudes and educational interest are precisely tested during the nine years of compulsory education and fastly rated durinq the entrance exams to the general or vocational Lyceums, a strong danger exists of creating rigid strata of "pushing" that is more men as well as more lower class pupils than before to vocational education, and on the other hand, more middle and upper class pupils to general education and via this into Universities". If this guess is correct, the principle of equality in educa.tion will tend to give away to the principle of economic efficiency in the Greek society of the future.
PARTICULARITIES OF THE GREEK CASE
In Greece like in other western societies, many instructors considered that education could evaluate in terms of justice, the students' ability that is distributed in all social strata. It's task is to find all these individuals and to help them to succeed in academic achievement. But the reality show (as elsewhere), that children of families with better socio-cultural background had a better academic achievement and thus they would proceed to the claiming of better social posts. During the last century, school was already a mechanism of social achevement (37). But the idea of democratisation of education being very old, we need to define exaclty our criteria by what we give to this principle a specific sense According to Bottomore(38) : "the idea of equality, which democracy, as a form of society may be held to imply, can easily be reinterpreted as equality of opportunity. Democracy will then be treated as a type of society in which the elites are "open" in principle, and are in fact recruited from different social strata on the basis of individual merit". In the education field, equality of opportunity implies also a equality of opportunity to move upwards in the existing system of occupational and elite stratification.
According to Greek researchers (39) at seventies the fact of the extent of participation of the population in the educational process constitute an important element of democratization of education. Also the degree of relative inequality in prestige offered by various types of schools and Universities constitute a second important element- But the most important is rather the degree of "openness" of the educational system to all categories of population. All these three elements are not enough in our opinion to persuade for the qualitative role of democratization in education, The first is strictly arithmetical, because we don't ever know who " gets in" the education but we count simple numbers. Statistics derived from early seventies showed that 49,8 % of the whole population were completely illiterate, 39% with only primary education completed and 9,% with secondary education. University was attended only by 2% of the population. All these numbers have little significance in themselves concerning social inequality. Another diachronic statistical study that covers a period of 12 years from 1967 to 1989 follows the total number of students inscribed in the first year of elementary school. From them only 38% arrived at the final class of high school and graduated (41). But since then, the reform of 1989 introduce the compulsory education of nine years and the number of students that attended high school at least for its first three years increased.
We see that a simple institutional reform can change all numbers and persuade everybody (and the population at the most) about the democratization of education. What is the difference of the 38% of students graduated exceed the 70% of ourdays in Just 13 years period? Can we conclude that Greek society is now more educated?, And if it is so, what kind of education is that, when {n the name of equal-lsation it Is reduced by all means to a programme of equality of minimal knowledge ? In the same time the quality of schooling cannot be measured by the criterion of public or private school because mostly pupils of low degrees frequent private schools and the quality of this kind of education is not above the standard. Neither the ratio of teachers to students reveals any quality of education except if it is very negative. Using for example the large number of University assistants as educational staff, the ratio teacher/students was in Greek Universities in 1972 1/18 (better than France that had 1/19)- But if we exclude the mass of these assistants that simply helped professors and never tought,then the real ratio falls to 1/81 (42).
The effort to create a unique type of school called in Greece "Poly-cladicon" (literally multi-branched) started from early sixties but was materialised only in 1982, In this kind of school that is not compulsory (Lyceum) the orientation of students is directed to technical education and after their graduation -they are encouraged to enter in technical institutes with a proportion of 5% on total entries without exams. Experience proved that in this type of unified lyceum (22 of them in all Greece) 2/3 of students attended the general direction that leads to university exams and only 1/3 the technological. This school turned to be a "cohabitation of a general and a technical school" without any unifying element except the common first class- Today this experiment is generally considered as unsuccessful.
As for the third element of "openness" of the educational system to all population's categories, we can remark that statistics show diachronically a diminution of the ratio of children introduced in universities that their father belonged to a higher professional group in opposition of children of father's lowest professional group. The ratio, that was 8/1 at sixties, became after ten years 3/1(43) and then was stabilised until today. What are the conclusions of the diachronical examination of this ratio? Does it reveal the changes of inequality in students access? Does it mark the transition of the majority of population to an almost coherent middle class? Nothing of all that, for the simple reason that if after the abolition of fees and books charges for students, university degree has been considered as a magic key for opening the doors to white collar occupations more for the less privileged Greek social strata, the increasing of their proportion in student population is very relative, since we do not possess similar statistical data for the masses of Greek students (44). Many of them go abroad for having failed Greek entrance exams. Most of these students belong to the privileged category because they can pay the high cost of living and sometimes high tuition fees, too. It is worth examining the social status of different university schools and faculties and proceed in analytical statistics. Some data from 1981 shows that the inequality is manifested in away of "preference" that makes some faculties of high prestige and the rest as faculties of low prestige. The recent increase of student enrollment in technological institutes that are usually devaluated in terms of social prestige, reveal once more this distinction.
A latest statistical data also coming from 199(45) reveals that the general percentage of University students that repeat their year at least once, is 37,3% of the total number of student population and this percentage is unequally distributed in all 17 Universities at work in Greece. More prestigious Universities have smaller ratio than the general and less prestigious larger that exceeds 65,5%! All this population of eternal students that increase the total number of student population at Universities up to 188.000 (1,87% of the total population of the country) manifests the difficulties of socially disadvantaged to continue and finish their studies while they work to earn their living. It wou1d be interesting to compare the proportions of high class children to 1ower class through these two categories of normally attending and eternal students. Then the results wou1d show how superficial is to feel glad if the ratio 8/1 of sixties ameliorated to 3/1 at seventies.
In conclusion, democratization in education cannot be measured neither by numbers of students nor by simple classification of parental jobs. There is not any change in educational inequality at the depth, except of the real gender equalisation to the attainment and access in University due to the recent phenomenon of women liberation and emancipation in Greece. The increase of student population in absolute numbers cannot persuade anybody that the real educational level of the population has improved. Of course, there are more representatives of many professions that need studies, than before, but the devaluation of Lyceum degrees leads to an analogous devaluation of University degrees. It seems as if the total criterion that defines the value of a diploma is not the scientific work done in the establishment from which it was delivered, but rather the possibility that the owner of this diploma has to find a high-prestige job. The state has institutionalised the diminuation of auto-selection by abolishing exams between primary and secondary education since the 1979 reform of nine years compulsory education and mostly by abolishing exams from compulsory to non-compulsory school. So everyone can continue his education theoritically on to the non-compulsory school.
The selection at universities gives possibility to enter even after many years the same time that state helps candidates changed the candidates the of repeated exams at by free supporting courses.
What is the meaning of best selection our days? Nobody can predict or calculate in advance if better scientists will emerge by a so-called system of best selection. Many proposals for institutionalisation of private higher education (46) still wait since state cannot risk public impatience with obvious political cost. The slogan of the sixties "education for everybody" seems today in the era of computer networks rather naïve. What will be the difference for the wealth of a nation if the total of its population is overeducated and unable to develop the country's natural sources and primary production? Greek society has been always, through its History, highly competitive but rather in commercial terms. Now it risks turning its competitiveness in the chase of a public post and the only production will be administration paper-production. It is not unemployment but side-employement of graduates (who claim to be scientific but are rather not) that represents the country's biggest problem. In the future Greek universities will provide diplomas to everybody by the principle of the "lowest possible effort" but the absolute devaluation of these diplomas will not give their owners any prestige at all. The cost for the instruction of practically everybody will burden the state finances and the profit will be null. Not can an educational system provide the needed cultural capital that will compose in long term the cultural tradition of a nation. Also not a mentality can be unless if faced with the laws of the free market that will give priority to the privileged and turn the rest to manual workers or "intellectual proletariat of the 21st century !
CONCLUSION
The so-called cultural capital creates a certain mobility of social status in Greece but it does not reproduce any class inequality because it is reproduced by itself in financial terms. The social result of this paradox is the creation (mostly in two younger generations) of masses of honorable but poor graduates. It is doubtful if cultural capital accompanies a person during all his life in our days because changes and evolutions do not permit the maintenance of the same post for ever, The Weberian status-society can last only a decade but no more. Not a school or University can provide prestigious material called cultural capital. Families also transmit it with relative larger difficulty than before. The huge middle class that emerges is not a class of socio-economic terms but of cultural terms. It is the class of sub-culture influenced by the messages of mass communication. The morality of this new culture will be proved more important. In the future, than the "knowledge" provided by schools. The teacher that will instruct the youth of the future will probably never enter in a school class. The crisis of the educational system characterised by an inflation of students, reflects nothing more than the crisis of a whole society in search of its "identity".
The penetration of profit-oriented private education via high technology promises, increases competitiveness in Greece concerning hopes and expectations for a better social status. The selection is reorganized in new terms and concerns mostly University qualifications that give access not only to academic but also to occupational achievement. Greece is far than the developing rural country of sixties and seventies and its entrance in the European Community orientates many young people towards an international career in Europe. The class stratification changes motivation and is reoriented to values rather technical than academic. The status of a person willing to achieve is a combination of high prestige post accompanied with high resources. The role of state seems weaker concerning all these evolutions and Greek society is found in the crossroad of a legislation that will probably allow private universities to delivery diplomas in Greek natives in Greece. The future remains obscure for a society that chooses, for reasons of prestigious competition, to send almost all its children to the tertiary sector neglecting the primary and secondary sectors as low prestige.

NOTES
1. Charchenko I : "Education composition of working urban population". Paper submitted to Xll World Congress of Sociology, Madrid, July 1990, 2. Bourdieu P. : "Les Heritiers" 3. ibid 4. ibid 5. Bertaux D. :"The desire to transmit and differential transmission of social status"- Paper presented in XII W.C.Soc. Madrid 1990. 6. Haller M. : " Social inequality in class". Paper presented in XII W.C.Soc. 7. Di-Maggio P. 1982 8. Weber M. : " Economy and Society" p. 930 . 9. ibid p.936 10. ibid p.932 11. ibid p.304 12. ibid p.935 9, .1 13. ibid p.930 14. ibid p.932 15. Haller M- In XII W.Congress 16. Mouzelis "Greece, facets of underdevelopment" London 1977 17. Bourdieu P , - Passeron J, : "Reproduction . , , .Paris 1977 18. ibid. 19. Bourdieu P. :"Cultural reproduction and social reproduction p.p.487-511 in"Power and Ideology in Education"N.Y,Oxford U.P. 20. Di-Maggio P, 1982 21. Di-Maaaio P. & Mohr G- 1985 22. Robinson R. & Garnier M. 1985 23. ibid 24. Mare R, 1981 25. Katsillis G. 1990 26. Aristodirnou 1988 27. Robert P-:"The role of cultural and material resources ii' the status attainment process.The Hungarian case" 12 W.Congress. 28. Bialecki I & Heyns B , : "Educational inequal ities in post war Poland" XII W. Congress 29. Sournelis C. & Psacharoooulos G. 30. Katsillis 31. For an empirical study of student attending "Frontistiria in Greece see Kassimati K, : "Results of student questionnaire", Athens 1977 32. Lampiri - Dirnaki J. 1983 33. Kazarnias A, & Psacharopoulos G. 1985 34. Jafetas G. & Jougas J, 1990 35. Tsoukalas C, 1975 36. Larnoiri-Dirnaki J , 1983 37. Tsoukalas C. 1975 38. Bottomore : "Elites and society"p.17 Pelican , London 1966 39. Larmpiri-Dirnaki J , 1983 40. UNESCO : Statistical Yearbook 1974 41. Tsaousis D, "Human society" p.572 Athens, 1987 42. Lampiri-Dirnaki J. 1983 43. Kazarnias A. & Psacharopoulos G, 1985 44. Psacharopoulos G. 1989 45. Greek Press (VIMA, Sunday,June 21,1992) 46. Psacharopoulos G. 1989
LITERATURE IN GREEK
1 . Aristodimou D : .The system of values and the profession selection : The Greek case' . Unpublished study, Athens , 1980 2 .Fragoudaki A. "Sociology of Education" Athens 1985 3 . Jafetas G and Jougas J z : Demographic and Socioeconomic characteristics ?n Greece" in "H.Education" Athens 1985. 4. Kazamias A. & Psacharoooulos G~:"Education Development and Socioeconomic study in H-Education" Athens 1985 5. Milios Education and Power" Athens, 1986. 6. Psacharoulos G. : "Achievement and chances equality Education" in "Economic Courrier" June 29, 1989. 7. Tsoukalas C,-"Dependence & Reproduction,the social role of the educational mechanisms in Greece (1830-1922)"Athens 1977
INTERNATIONAL
8. Boudon R, " L'inegalite des chances- La mobilite sociale dans les societes industrielles" Paris,A-Colin, 1979 9. Bourdieu P.& Passeron J,: "The production of Education society and culture" Sage Publ.,1977 10. Bourdieu P. "Les Heritiers", Paris 1964. 11. Di-Maggio P, ."Cultural capital and school success"A.S.R.47 (p.189-202) , 1982 12. Di-Maggio P. & Mohr G. " Cultural capital ,educational attainment and marital selection" A-J.S. 90 (p. 1231-61) 1985 13. Katsillis J. & Robinson R. Cultural capital , student achievement and educational reproduction in Greece" ASR 55, 1990 14. Lampiri-Dimaki: "Social Stratification in Greece Ed. Sakkoulas Athens 1983. 15. Mare R, Change and Stability in Educational Stratificaion" ASR(pp.72-87 ), 1981. 16. Robinson B.& Garnier M. :"Class reproduction among men and women in France AJS 91 (pp. 250-80), 1985. 17.Soumelis C " Case study.- Greece in individual demand for Education O.E.C.D. and Paris 1979 18. Weber Max. "Economy and Society" N.York Bedminster 1968