On the other hand, Marxist sociologists Wefhorst and Hofstede (2007) argue that cultural capital is a significant factor in explaining ability levels. They argue that students educational choices are based on the risk associated with downward social mobility. They explain that although more working class pupils are now entering higher education, more middle classes attend university because they do not want to risk downward social mobility. At class attainment, participating in higher education, the Youth Cohort Study (2005) found that in 2005 59% of 19 year olds from higher professional backgrounds and 19% of those from routine backgrounds were in higher education, equating to a 40% difference. Even though the working class is managing to rise in higher education the middle class keep the upper hand because of the risk they are able to afford because of their cultural capital.
Douglas (1964), a functional sociologist, related educational attainment to his study which factored parental interest. Compared to the culturally deprived working class the middle class parents visited the school more frequently to discuss their children’s progress. They wanted their children to stay at school past the minimum school leaving age and they gave their children greater attention and stimulus during their early years. Feinstein (2005) provides some support for Douglas’s work as findings demonstrate a similar pattern to Douglas’s. Summing up that cultural deprivation doesn’t affect the middle class.
However, Becker (1971), and internationalist, carried out a study which looked at the interest on teacher’s perceptions. He interviewed sixty teachers from Chicago high schools and found they tended to share an image of an ‘ideal pupil’. Where the middle class background students are closest to this perception and working class background students are furthest from the perception, because, they were seen as less able, lacking motivation and difficult to control. Becker then concluded that for many teachers the attitude, conduct and appearance were more important than the obvious ability and intelligence. The in school factors explain that the problems brought to light aren’t to do with intelligence but more about the social class difference that affect the educational achievement.
In addition, many Marxist sociologists support the cultural capital, with knowledge, values and skills of the ruling class, creating a ‘Dominant Culture’. As the ‘Dominant Culture’ the upper classes have been socialized into the dominant culture which includes art, drama, classical music and literature. According to Bourdieu (1984) argues the more cultural capital young people have, the greater their chance of educational success- of high grades at GSCE and A level and a place at top universities such as Oxford and Cambridge. He argue that middle class pupils have higher success rates than working class students because middle class students are closer to the dominant culture.
In opposition, Sullivan (2001) attempted to challenge to test Bourdieu’s theory by designing a questionnaire made to measure cultural capital. However Sullivan only seemed to support Bourdieu’s theory. She seemed to reveal l strong links between social capital and social class, pupils with the highest scores tended to be the sons and daughters of university educated professionals. Other factors other than Cultural capital seems to be the cause most of the class differences in educational attainment. Sullivan proposes that the factors include ‘material deprivation’ and ‘Parental interests’.
In conclusion, the differences in class cultures have been shown to affect the result of the class differences in education attainment. By taking risks, having a limited interest in education, and dominating other cultures, the differences in social classes influence educational achievement in distinctive ways.