Through the socialisation of future generations they claim that the needs of society are meet, thus the installation of, what are seen to be, socially agreed shared norms and values into youths results in a future respect for authority and conformity to societies rules, amongst other things. Therefore, this will, in theory, lead to social harmony, stability and social integration. Davis and Moore (1945) argue that the education system matches students to the jobs in which they are best suited on a basis of their talent and ability.
Good conclusions usually refer back to the question or title and address it directly - for example by using key words from the title.
How well do you think these conclusions address the title or question? Answering these questions should help you find out.
Do they use key words from the title or question?
Do they answer the question directly?
Can you work out the question or title just by reading the conclusion?
"To conclude my essay I think that school and what takes place in them isn't the main cause of social class. I think schooling is a good pathway provided in order for you to achieve you goals. This is only the case if the individual want to learn and work hard for a good job. Functionalist say that meritocracy isn't a myth with I agree with because its all about the individual."
"Race also comes into the argument, in the sense that teachers can often label and black boys are frequently perceived as badly behaved and under achieving. However Errol Lawrence challenges this view and blames it on racism.
To conclude, the extent to which working-class children are affected by their cultural values and socialisation is more vast than that of a middle-class pupil. Sugarman outlines four main factors that affect this; Falism; Collectivism; Immediate gratification and present-time orientation. It has been proved that children of working class families have a much higher chance of possessing these traits, and this can often lead to labelling and a negative attitude towards education, resulting in failure."
"In conclusion, religion can be both a conservative force and an initiator of social change.
Functionalists would argue that religion acts as a conservative force in that it inhibits social change by promoting social solidarity and integration. Marxists have a similar view, however, they believe religion inhibits social change in that it discourage individuals from trying to change their position in society. On the other hand, Weber and Neo-Marxists argue that religion can be revolutionary and act as an initiator of social change. This evidence suggests that religion can both be a conservative force and an initiator of social change.
Marked by a teacher
This document has been marked by one of our great teachers. You can read
the full teachers notes when you download the document.
This document has been reviewed by one of our specialist student essay
reviewing squad. Read the full review on the document page.
This document has been reviewed by one of our specialist student document
reviewing squad. Read the full review under the document preview on this page.