Talk:Sociology of education

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Umedi2016.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 11 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sadiethompsonn, Masan brown.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2020 and 30 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jessicarose02.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Creation of Article
I have begun creating this article by putting forward the three perspectives I have studied in regards to education. It would be good for anyone who knows other sociological perspectives on education to add to this article!

As you can see the article finishes with Bourdieu. I was going to put some of the criticisms of Bourdieu's perspective here but because I have studied him indepth and have come up with answers for most of the criticisms of his work, even though I would put all the criticism my responses would probably unbalance the article.

I don't know where the list of educational sociologists in Hong Kong came from, it was the only info on the stub when I began, but I've left it there anyway for now. JenLouise 02:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi JenLouise! Do you have any idea to discuss the work of Pierre Bourdieu as well as those of James S. Coleman in educational sociology?--147.8.124.70 08:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)KW
 * I've done a bit of work on Bourdieu at uni, and so touched a tiny bit on Coleman. What are you trying to discuss? JenLouise 23:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Bourdieu's works are only one theoretical perspective to apporoach educational sociology, even the concepts of cultural capital and social capital. If WE are making a page of "sociology of education", we need to find somebody who is famililar with Coleman's work to discuss under your sub-heading of cultural capital.Do you agree, JenLouise?--147.8.122.192 09:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)KW
 * Absolutely, that's why I started this talk page with: It would be good for anyone who knows other sociological perspectives on education to add to this article! . JenLouise 07:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Change of headings
Conflict theory does not belong under the heading of Marxism-NeoMarxism. Conflict theory is simply the theory that society is made up of different groups struggling to maximise their position and benefits. Marxism relates everything to the Mode of Production and the tension between the base and superstrucutre. Therefore Marxism might seem to be a very particular strand of conflict theory although most people would argue against this. Also, Bourdieu cannot be classed under the heading of Interactionism/Weberian Perspective. So I have removed both these headings. Please feel free to discuss. JenLouise 23:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Footnote style references
To show what it looks like and how to do it, I've introduced an example of footnote style referencing. Many wikipedia articles use this reference style, and it may be suitable for this article too. For a more complete example, see educational psychology. Let's discuss whether to use this referencing style here. Nesbit 16:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

rewrite of conflict theory section
Some major changes have been made to this section that are completley out of line. Valid viewpoints that are specifically referenced back to authors and works have been deleted with no explanation, critiques have been added into the middle of a section explicitly stating itself a one theoretical perspective, and sentences have been added or modified without any references, completely changing the meaning of paragraphs. This has been done in such a way as to purport that the modifications are referenced to the original references when in most cases they completely contradict what the reference says. The article has been set up to present each theoretical perspective's work on the sociology of education. If someone wishes to add a REFERENCED critique of these perspetices then please do so, it would only help to improve the article. But please do so at the end of the particular perspective.

As such I have:
 * removed (unreferenced) critiques of material that don't belong in body of the section
 * removed any additions that aren't part of each particular theory and are unreferenced
 * undid any alterations to sentences that contradicted what the reference for that sentence says
 * readded any sentences that were deleted.

If you feel that the article needs substantial work, please discuss here first. JenLouise 13:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Links
This doesn't work: Bourdieu, P., (1986) “The Forms of Capital” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.155.233.181 (talk) 06:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Very bad quality wikiwork.
The last part of political arithmetic:

"Political arithmetic is the philosophical insights that govern the pluralistic society like India. Politics of Education has emerged as one of potential human knowledge where politics play significant role in social inequalities and stratificatis. The Politics of Education Association at Florida State University, and the Center for Policy Research at New Delhi( India) are bright examples where a number of studies carried out on the social policy. India, though popular being the largest democracy of the world, political arithmetic has paralyzed the entire education system. Equity and equality continue to grow in Indian context, educated Indian society is more stratified than ever before. It is not the wrong approaches that are being employed to examine the political arithmetic in sociology of Indian education rather the diversities within the nation is the major concern.Political parties use public votes as the simplest and cheapest means for their survival. Political arithmetic in India has never allowed to education to be defined the way it ought to be. The ex-prime minister of India and the erstwhile Union Minister of HRD, Mr.P.V.Narasimharao's authored book on "Politics of Education"(1967)illustrates the political arithmetic of Indian education System."

Given the bad use of English, the incomprehensible argument and the absence of references, I don't know if we can salvage this bit or we should discard it altogether.

Schizophonix (talk) 12:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Balance of Information
This article clearly address the meaning behind the education area of Sociology. It is very important to full understanding, that certain details are addressed to their maximum. Meaning that certain areas of this topic are not in any ways under detailed. Students in earlier education are definitely expressed to full detail, but a reader would question themselves in a sense of older and late education of Sociology. It is important to be sure that you cover all aspects of the topic. Adult hood education is important too. Citations and certain details are obtainable, but the depth of social interaction within education during adult years is very important as well as younger and childhood education. --Jessicarose02 (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)-