Changing Roles of Men and Women

In Britain in the mid-sixties and 1970 sociologists were examining the levels of underachievement of working chasten pupils. It was clear from the set about that they were underachieving compared to the middle somaes in terms of gaining door to selective works, achievement at 16 O Levels/CSEs/GCSEs entry to university and further training. In other words, it was clear that working class children were most likely to end up doing working class jobs. Despite this evidence, it was not entirely clear how working class pupils failed. This was revealed by the pioneering work of Paul Willis (1977).Whereas previous(prenominal) explanations of working class failure in the education system tended to provide actually mechanistic approaches which were based on the logical system of a particular theoretical approach, Willis set out to examine the actual experiences of a group of working class lads and to suss out what actually happened to them. It is only through a more qualitative app roach that such(prenominal) an insight can be gained. It is believed that descriptive anthropology provides a more valid (accurate) imprint of social life which more quantifiable methods such as questionnaires cannot do.In Williss nurse Learning to Labour How Working variant Kids Get Working Class Jobs, he is a participant observer of 12 boys in a West Midlands crop in the 1970s. He follows them during their last course of test and a half at school and their first few months at work. (The junior-grade sample 12 boys is clearly a limiting factor to his work as well as the fact that he only focuses on boys). In this essay there will be an interrogative of the issues raised in relation to Willis study by Gordon (1994) and an assessment of how well she seems to beg off these issues and whether her points are shared by other critics of Willis study such as