Education delayed but not denied: The Chinese Cultural Revolution cohort returning to school

Abstract

Abstract Schooling decisions made in later life tend to be overlooked in conventional studies of educational attainment. Even when they are examined, too often focus is placed on individual biographies, while the roles of historical timing and the state are neglected. This paper adds to the literature by investigating to what extent cohort membership is directly associated with returning to school and intersects with social origins, gender, and political credentials to shape one’s returning-to-school decision. I compare three Chinese cohorts who turned age 19 in different historical periods. Coming of age during the turbulent decade of the Culture Revolution (1966–76, CR), members of the CR cohort lost the chance to receive a higher education “on time” and were subject to a state intervention that deliberately demolished early-life advantages conferred by families, whereas adjacent cohorts (pre-CR and post-CR cohort) were largely able to climb the educational ladder “on time.” Drawing on detailed life history data from the 2003 Chinese General Social Survey , Cox proportional hazards models show that members of the CR cohort are more likely to return to school from their mid-20s on compared with adjacent cohorts, thereby narrowing but not closing their educational gap. Cohort membership is also a contingency factor. Parental education does not predict college reentry rates for members of the pre- and post-CR cohorts, but does for members of the Cultural Revolution cohort, reflecting their early-life discrimination during the Cultural Revolution and their regained resources following it. Women are less likely to return compared with men, and the gender gap is particularly large for the CR cohort at the associate college level. Party members are more apt to return, suggesting party-sponsored patronage, and their advantages are most pronounced among members of the CR and post-CR cohorts. Taken together, this study highlights the roles of the state and historical timing in the shaping of decisions around returning to school.