„Bogacze” i „biedacy” – plany edukacyjne młodzieży Grudziądza i okolic a ich kapitał symboliczny

Abstract

The title “rich” and “poor” are respondents who took part in the research plans of youth education from Grudziądz and surrounding areas. During the analysis of the data was evaluated their symbolic capital [SC], which is the final instance of equity conversion: cultural, social and economic. It took the values that differ significantly from the average in the study group. In the 31-point scale, “poor” where called people whose measured SC received less than 9 points. The “rich” are people with SC bigger than 19 points. Group accounted for 7.7% and 8.1% of the population (respectively 155 and 164 people). 84.2% of population received in the measurement of SC score between 10-18 points, constituting 29% of the scale. That means that a high similarity of tested people for the measured SC. The data do not reflect the real inequalities that occur in modern society. For the SC test by gender, it was noted outnumbered the “rich” men, due to more frequent than in women taking more lucrative work. With regard to housing, most fell Świecie, where lives most of the capital rich at the same time the least poor capital. Slightly dropped Grudziądz, in which live almost as much “rich” and “poor”, which distracted in the area of small villages. Determined to continue their education was 85.4% “rich” and 65.2% “poor”. With regard to second degree studies, the declarations made 71.4% of the “rich”. 2/3 “poor” could not take such a decision at the time of the study. Nearly 1/4 of the group was not able to identify a particular direction, or university of their future studies. The “poor” often declared a desire to study in the fields to which it is easy to get (tourism, cosmetology, physiotherapy and available in Grudziądz educational sciences). The high ranking law reflects the desires and needs of their social advancement. The “rich” often give direction to ‘prestigious’ and harder subjects (medicine, science, law, and engineering). In both groups, there were no indications of ‘uniform’ subjects, popular in the overall population. Wealthy capital want to get through studies or maintain high social status and prestige occupations. Poorer searching in higher education relative economic security and greater social recognition.