1. Factors Contributing to Social Mobility: Education and Network Ties
Jennie Pilong
Social Stratification
Fall 2014
Eastern University

2. 1
America is founded on a class-based system. In an effort to better understand the people who fall into each
class, and the factors that contributed to their current class situation, I interviewed three adults. Through my
interviews I recognized two common themes involved in social mobility: education and network ties. In this paper I
will discuss the three different classes found in America, briefly introduce my interviewees, and explain how
education and network ties influenced the social mobility of all of them.
Social Class
Harold Kerbo, in Social Stratification and Inequality: Class Conflict in Historical, Comparative, and
Global Perspective (2012), discusses the various social classes in the United States. The upper class, as defined by
Kerbo, consists of families who have old wealth and live a very specific lifestyle. He explains that the term “upper
class” is misused. It is assumed by many that the upper class consists of everyone who has a lot of money, but in
reality only 0.5-1 percent of the American population would qualify.
Kerbo uses the term corporate class to identity the people many Americans mistakenly judge as upper
class. The corporate class has many similar characteristics as the upper class, but its power lies in control of the
means of production instead of ownership of the means of production. The middle class sits right below the
corporate class. Individuals within this class range in occupations from high skilled, such as doctors, to mid-level
occupations, such as office workers.
The lower class follows the middle class and is made up of the poor. Those in this class mayor may not be
employed. Some receive welfare, some do not. Regardless of their individual circumstances, their collective
circumstances are bleak. According to Kerbo, the poor keep getting poorer.
Interviews
I interviewed three individuals, one each from the corporate class, the middle class, and the lower class.
For each of these interviews, I sought to understand what factors contributed to their current class location. I asked
them about their family histories, their education, their work experience, and their political involvement. All three
individuals were impacted by their family history and life choices. Two of the three experienced social mobility.
Kelly Smith, white, 46-year old female, is a member of the corporate class. Interestingly, she grew up in
the lower class. After graduating high school, she put herself through college by working at a hair salon. She
graduated from Gwynedd-Mercy College with a dual degree in psychology and nursing. She worked in various

3. 2
hospitals and group homes until her first son was born. She has been a stay-at-home mother ever since. While in
college, she met her husband. It is her husband's climb up the corporate ladder that brought them into the corporate
class. They, and their three children, now live comfortably in a large house with a basketball court and a pool in the
backyard. They just recently bought a vacation home in the mountains.
Jim Hoffman is a white, 30-year old man who sits solidly in the middle class. He has a Bachelor's degree in
engineering and just completed his Master's in chaplaincy. As an unmarried father at the age of 17, statistics would
have predicted his sinking into the lower class, but his hard work and education have enabled him to keep both feet
in the middle class. He currently lives in a two-bedroom apartment, saving up to buy a house once he gets married
to his current girlfriend. He has partial custody of his daughter.
Betty Cruz, a white, 90-year old woman, has the opposite story as Kelly Smith. Betty was raised in an
upper -class family and is now in the lower class. Her family's wealth was lost in the Great Depression and they
never gained back what they had lost. She lived most of her adult life in the middle class, but age and medical issues
resulted in further social sinking. She now rents a one bedroom apartment, which she pays for with Social Security.
Education
Alvin Gouldner, in The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of the New Class (2011), predicts that a new
social order is coming to fruition. This “New Class” is comprised of intellectuals and tech-savvy individuals. He
follows the development of this New Class through the historic processes of secularization, the rise of diverse
languages, the breakdown of feudal regimes, capitalism, globalization, changing family structure, and public
education. All of these, he theorizes, came together to form the perfect climate for the rise of the New Class.
Gouldner expresses numerous ways in which the New Class differentiates itself from the old class,
including its stressed autonomy from the old class. He explains that the New Class is continually developing an
ideology that stresses separation from and independence of business or political interests. Through my interview
with Jim, I could see this theme playing out in his life. He recounted that in his earlier years he was “fanatic about
politics” (from interview). He explained that he was constantly blasting out links n Facebook to articles that
supported his views, arguing with people who held different views from him, and participating in political activism.
As he got older, his involvement and passion lessened – although he was quick to point out that he still votes in
every election.

4. 3
It is interesting to note that at the same time his political passions were waning, his education was
increasing. Gouldner's argument that the New Class is less politically involved is supported by Jim's experiences.
Jim, with his Master's degree, easily fits in to the New Class Gouldner describes – his journey in politics seals the
deal.
Gouldner goes on to explain that the New Class is the New Bourgeoisie because of its control of capital. In
this case, capital is not money, but knowledge. David Grusky and Manwai Ku, in Gloom, Doom, and Inequality
(2008), explain that there are many different forms of capital, or assets. One of these asset categories is cultural
assets. Included in this group are knowledge, “digital culture,” and possessing good manners (p. 6). Jim holds much
of this capital. With his Bachelor's in electronic technology engineering, he possesses he digital culture asset. Along
with this knowledge comes job opportunity and advancement in the technological sector.
Jim seems to have overcome the odds in regard to his social standing after fathering a child at such a young
age. Could it be that Jim's cultural capital is what prevented him from following the fate of so many young parents?
Reginald Covington et al., in Teen Fatherhood and Educational Attainment: Evidence From Three Cohorts of
Youth (2011), found that “teen fatherhood is associated with a lower probability of high school graduation and
college attendance” (p. 2). According to their research, financial needs may result in young fathers leaving school in
pursuit of a job. A lack of education results in a lack of cultural assets, and thus may lead to stagnant, or sinking,
social mobility. Jim, who had his daughter after he graduated high school, was able to complete his high school
education. He was able to continue his education by taking night classes and working. His drive for higher
education, and the job security that came with it, pushed him forward in his pursuits. It could be possible, then, that
his awareness of the importance of cultural capital kept him from following the footsteps of so many of his
counterparts.
Kelly's husband also holds cultural assets. He is the Vice President at PJM, a “regional transmission
organization that coordinates the movement of wholesale electricity in all or parts of 13 states and the District of
Columbia” (PJM). He is an electrical engineer by trade and worked his way up to a top position at PJM. His
knowledge in the technology field opened the door for him to move to the corporate class. Unlike any other time in
American history, stock knowledge of modern technology is a sure way to secure a position in society.
On the other hand, Betty lacked any kind of cultural capital. She had no education beyond high school, and

5. 4
she was a grandparent by the time the Internet become a household tool. Her lack of education kept her from
obtaining a high paying job. Her husband, as well, lacked cultural capital. He had a military education, fought in
World War II, and then came home to work in industrial equipment sales. Neither of them had any opportunity for
social mobility based on their cultural capital.
Networking
In The Strength of Weak Ties (2001), Mark Granovetter discusses the importance of network ties on social
mobility. He differentiates between strong and weak ties. He explains that “the strength of a tie is a (probably linear)
combination of the amount of time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy (mutual confiding), and the reciprocal
services which characterize the tie” (p. 589). His theory indicates that the stronger a tie individual A has to
individual B, the more weak ties that are available to both of them. Weak ties are connections to friends-of-friends,
a sibling's coworkers, or any other loose relation. These overlapping relationships are strongest when the initial tie is
strong. The stronger a tie between two individuals is, the more similar they will tend to be. Thus, they will both
have other strong ties with the same people.
Relationships consist of what Granovetter calls bridges. These bridges are what connect individual A to
individual C, a coworker of individual B. Without A and B's strong tie, A would never have a weak tie, or network,
to C. Because individuals who are weakly tied together are less likely to be similar, by default, they are also less
likely to move in the same social circles. Thus, an individual who has many weak ties to those in higher social
classes is able to use those networks to his or her advantage and move up the social ladder. An individual who lacks
weak ties also lacks opportunity to be socially mobile.
Nan Lin expands on this network theory in her work Social Networks and Status Attainment (2001). She
explains that status attainment occurs through an individual's mobilization and investment of resources “for returns
in socioeconomic standings” (p. 594). She discusses two types of resources: personal resources and social resources.
Personal resources are things that people own, such as a house, education, and wealth. Social resources are “out
there,” so to speak. These resources are accessible through direct (strong) and indirect (weak) ties. They include
things such as an individual's neighbor being married to the sister of a world-renown spinal surgeon who then
agrees to perform said neighbor's back surgery because of the connection. Social resources provide job
opportunities, access to interviews at prestigious universities, and recommendations than lead to application

6. 5
acceptance by a neighborhood association.
Social resources are not possessed by an individual, and they can disappear at any point. Despite this,
social resources are deemed more important than personal resources, much like weak ties are more important for
social mobility than strong ties. Personal resources may give an individual the ability to buy an expensive car, but
social resources most likely provided the job that resulted in the money to buy said car. A lack of social resources,
then, has the same negative affect on social mobility as a lack of weak ties.
Betty's life story illustrates the effects of ties and resources. Betty grew up in a very wealthy family. Her
parents hired maids and drivers and, according to Betty, her mother was a lady who “didn't even know how to boil
water.” Their family wealth enabled them to live lives of comfort. Her mother was very concerned about keeping up
their appearance as belonging to the upper class, so much so that she did not allow her children to play with the
other, lower class children. Betty's parents went to operas and spent time with their few upper-class friends. There
were no connections outside of their social group, no weak ties.
The Depression hit and Betty's family lost their wealth. They had to move to the country and her parents
lost the few connections they had. Her mother, though, continued to insist on living as if they were in the upper
class. She continued to hire a maid and a driver. She continued to keep her children from interacting with those she
considered to be below her family (which, apparently, was everyone). Betty's family cultivated no ties and their
social standing continued to sink.
Had her parents made an effort to create ties outside of their social group, things may have turned out
differently. Her father could possibly have made a connection that would have led to a job in managerial work. His
experiences with finances, combined with the leadership characteristics he likely possessed as a result of growing
up in the upper class, could have helped him rise to the top of a company. Unfortunately, no ties existed.
At the same time, had Betty been allowed to cultivate ties of her own, she may have made connections that
would have set her up for future social mobility. Instead, she grew up with no connections, married a man her
brother went to school with, and ended up sinking to the lower class in her later years.
Kelly has a much different story. She grew up in the lower class, but now finds herself in the upper class.
Her desire to escape her mother's situation led her to pursue higher education. She had to pay for college herself, so
started working as a hairdresser. One of her coworkers at the salon knew a man who owned a small apartment and

7. 6
was willing to rent it out for a lo cost. Affordable rent helped her to save money and eventually go to college. She
was introduced by friends at college to the man she is currently married to. Without the various weak ties in her life
she never would have ended up where she is now. Her use of her connections, or social resources, enabled her to
become an educated and, now, wealthy woman.
Jim also used social connections to his advantage. After completing his engineering degree, he decided that
he wanted to become a chaplin. He enrolled in school, but needed experience in the field, along with a letter of
recommendation from a pastor, in order to graduate. Through a friend he heard of a church that was starting a young
adult ministry. He became involved in the ministry and eventually was hired by the church. Cashing in on the social
capital of his friend lead to his completion of a Master's of Divinity. Without that tie, his progress would most likely
have been postponed, or even halted.
Conclusion
Many factors contribute to the social mobility of individuals. Through my interviews, I found that
education and network ties influenced each of my subjects. It was interesting to see that wealth was not the primary
factor in their social mobility. Instead, the cultural asset of education propelled both Jim and Kelly's husband
forward, while a lack of the asset kept Betty back. Social assets, such as network ties also influenced the mobility of
my interviewees. Kelly moved up in social class through marriage, Jim obtained his Master's degree through a
connection to a church, and Betty lacked the ability to move upward because of her lack of ties. Network ties and
education do not guarantee upward mobility; Jim stayed right where he started. But I believe they do act as a buffer
against social sinking.

8. 7
Bibliography
Covington, Reginald. H. Elizabeth Peters. Joseph J. Sabia. Joseph P. Price. 2011. Teen Fatherhood and
Educational Attainment:Evidence From Three Cohorts of Youth. Retrieved December 9, 2014
(http://resiliencelaw.org/wordpress2011/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Teen-Fatherhood-and-Educational-
Attainment.pdf).
Gouldner, Alvin. 2001. “The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of the New Class.” pp. 118-127. The Inequality
Reader: Contemporary and Foundational Readings in Race, Class, and Gender. 2nd
Ed. Edited by David B.
Grusky and Szonja Szelenyi. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Granovetter, Mark S. 2001. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” pp. 589-593. The Inequality Reader: Contemporary
and Foundational Readings in Race, Class, and Gender. 2nd
Ed. Edited by David B. Grusky and Szonja
Szelenyi. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Grusky, David and Manwai C. Ku. 2008. “Gloom, Doom, and Inequality” pp. 2 – 28 in Social
Stratification: Class, Race, and Gender in Sociological Perspective. Boulder: Westview
Press on BB.
Kerbo, Harold. 2012. Social Stratification and Inequality: Class Conflict in Historical ,
Comparative, and Global Perspective. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Lin, Nan. 2001. “Social Networks and Status Attainment.” pp. 594-596 .The Inequality
Reader: Contemporary and Foundational Readings in Race, Class, and Gender. 2nd
Ed.
Edited by David B. Grusky and Szonja Szelenyi. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
PJM. 2014. “About.” Audubon, PA. Retrieved December 9, 2014
(http://www.pjm.com/about-pjm.aspx).

9. 7
Bibliography
Covington, Reginald. H. Elizabeth Peters. Joseph J. Sabia. Joseph P. Price. 2011. Teen Fatherhood and
Educational Attainment:Evidence From Three Cohorts of Youth. Retrieved December 9, 2014
(http://resiliencelaw.org/wordpress2011/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Teen-Fatherhood-and-Educational-
Attainment.pdf).
Gouldner, Alvin. 2001. “The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of the New Class.” pp. 118-127. The Inequality
Reader: Contemporary and Foundational Readings in Race, Class, and Gender. 2nd
Ed. Edited by David B.
Grusky and Szonja Szelenyi. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Granovetter, Mark S. 2001. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” pp. 589-593. The Inequality Reader: Contemporary
and Foundational Readings in Race, Class, and Gender. 2nd
Ed. Edited by David B. Grusky and Szonja
Szelenyi. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Grusky, David and Manwai C. Ku. 2008. “Gloom, Doom, and Inequality” pp. 2 – 28 in Social
Stratification: Class, Race, and Gender in Sociological Perspective. Boulder: Westview
Press on BB.
Kerbo, Harold. 2012. Social Stratification and Inequality: Class Conflict in Historical ,
Comparative, and Global Perspective. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Lin, Nan. 2001. “Social Networks and Status Attainment.” pp. 594-596 .The Inequality
Reader: Contemporary and Foundational Readings in Race, Class, and Gender. 2nd
Ed.
Edited by David B. Grusky and Szonja Szelenyi. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
PJM. 2014. “About.” Audubon, PA. Retrieved December 9, 2014
(http://www.pjm.com/about-pjm.aspx).