Credential and Class DistributionsA

Credential and Class Distributions

Another very important remaining question can only be touched on here. This is the problem of defining the appropriate measures of educational attainment and occupational level of the first job. Some studies (e.g., Allmendinger, 1989a) have used ordinal scales for both: years of schooling and occupational prestige. These are not the most usual measures, however. The studies reported in the Shavit and Miiller (1998) volume all conducted analyses using catego-ries of both educational attainment and level of the first job. They adopted a revised version of a set of credential categories devised by Miiller, Liittinger, Konig, & Karle (1989), and the occupational class schema used in that volume and in many other comparative studies is one proposed by Erikson, Goldthorpe, & Portocarero (1979).
There are major societal differences in the distributions of both of those measures. For instance, a very large proportion of young French men (41.6%) have only the lowest level of educational credentials, whereas only a very small proportion (6.0%) of young German men have them. The societies also vary greatly in their distributions of occupational classes. In the
United States, 40.7% of the young men are in the lowest class, and that is four times as many
as in Germany.
These differences raise doubts about whether the credential and class categories are equally meaningful in all of these societies. They also raise questions about how well the categories lend themselves to intersocietal comparisons because of the effects the different distributions
have on measures of association. As Miiller and associates (1989) pointed out regarding the distributions of credentials, "The less concentrated the population is on the different certificates available in the educational system, the more easily can certificates be used for [job] selection purposes" (p. 9). Of course, the same can be said for the distributions of occupational classes. So, when we start comparing societies in terms of the association between those two highly varied distributions, important methodological questions need to be raised.The
comparative analyses conducted by Miiller and associates have shed some light on these questions, but there is much more to be done.

結果 (繁體中文) 1:

Credential and Class DistributionsAnother very important remaining question can only be touched on here. This is the problem of defining the appropriate measures of educational attainment and occupational level of the first job. Some studies (e.g., Allmendinger, 1989a) have used ordinal scales for both: years of schooling and occupational prestige. These are not the most usual measures, however. The studies reported in the Shavit and Miiller (1998) volume all conducted analyses using catego-ries of both educational attainment and level of the first job. They adopted a revised version of a set of credential categories devised by Miiller, Liittinger, Konig, & Karle (1989), and the occupational class schema used in that volume and in many other comparative studies is one proposed by Erikson, Goldthorpe, & Portocarero (1979).There are major societal differences in the distributions of both of those measures. For instance, a very large proportion of young French men (41.6%) have only the lowest level of educational credentials, whereas only a very small proportion (6.0%) of young German men have them. The societies also vary greatly in their distributions of occupational classes. In theUnited States, 40.7% of the young men are in the lowest class, and that is four times as manyas in Germany.這些差異令人懷疑的憑據和類的類別是否在所有這些社會有同樣的意義。他們也質疑如何好類別借自己給社會比較影響不同分佈對結社的措施。正如 Miiller 和同夥 (1989 年) 關於分佈的憑據，指出"少集中的人口是在教育系統中可用的證書不同，越容易可證書用於 [工作] 選擇目的"(p.9)。當然，同樣可以說為職業類的分佈。所以，當我們開始比較社會的那些兩個高度不同的分佈關係，重要的方法論問題需要提出。的通過 Miiller 進行比較分析和同夥有闡明這些問題，但還有很多工作要做。

結果 (繁體中文) 2:

憑據和分佈類的另一個非常重要的剩下的問題也只能在這裡觸及。這是確定受教育程度和第一份工作的職業等級的相應措施的問題。一些研究（例如，Allmendinger，1989年a）已經使用順序尺度為：受教育年限和職業聲望。這些都不是最常用的措施，但是。報告在沙維特和米勒的研究（1998年），卷中的所有分析使用catego -里斯無論受教育程度和第一份工作的水平進行。他們採取了一系列設計由米勒，Liittinger，柯尼希，＆Karle（1989），並在該卷和許多其他的比較研究中使用的職業類架構憑證類的修訂版是一款提出了埃里克森，Goldthorpe，與Portocarero （1979年），有兩種這些措施的分佈主要的社會差異。舉例來說，一個非常大的比例的年輕法國人（41.6％）有教育證書只有最低水平，而年輕的德國男人只有一個非常小的比例（6.0％）有他們。該協會也相差很大的職業類及其分佈。在美國，年輕的男性40.7％，是最低級的，那就是四倍多是在德國。這些差異提高對憑證和階級範疇是否在所有這些社會同樣有意義的懷疑。他們還提出關於類別如何借給自己intersocietal因為不同分佈的影響比較問題有關聯的措施。由於米勒和同事（1989）指出，有關證書的發行，“少集中的人口是在教育系統中可用的不同的證書，越容易，可用於[任務]選擇目的證書”（第9頁）。當然，同樣可以說是職業階層的分佈。所以，當我們開始在這兩個多種多樣分佈之間的關係方面比較社會，重要的方法論問題都需要raised.The 由米勒和同事已經闡明這些問題的一些光進行比較分析，但還有更多要完成。

結果 (繁體中文) 3:

證書和類分佈，另一個非常重要的問題，只能在這裡被感動。這是確定教育程度和職業水准的第一份工作的適當措施的問題。一些研究（例如，”阿爾門丁格，1989）使用順序量表為：教育和職業聲望年。這些不是最常用的措施，不過該研究報告在維特和Muller（1998）體積進行分析使用類的教育程度和水准的第一份工作。他們採用了一個修訂版的一套憑證的類別後，liittinger，柯尼格設計，&卡樂（1989），用於體積和其他許多比較研究職業類架構是一個由埃裡克森Goldthorpe提出，&portocarero（1979）。
都存在這些措施的分佈主要社會差异。例如，一個非常大的比例的年輕的法國男子（41.6%）的教育資格證書的最低水准，而只有一個非常小的比例（6%）的年輕的德國男人有他們。社會各階層在職業階層的分佈上也各有不同。在美國，40.7%的年輕人是在最低階層，這是四倍，在德國。這些差异引起了懷疑，是否在所有這些社會中的憑據和類類是同樣有意義的。他們還提出了關於如何做好類本身Intersocietal比較問題是因為對協會有不同的分佈
的影響。當M和同事（1989）指出有關憑據的分佈，“濃度低的人口在教育系統中可用的不同證書，更容易證明可用於[工作]選擇的目的”（9頁）。當然，同樣可以說是職業階層的分佈。所以，當我們開始比較這兩個高度不同的分佈之間的關聯的社會，重要的方法論問題需要提出，Muller和同事進行比較分析的
已經在這些問題上有一些啟發，但有更多的工作要做。