Those of us who know Torsten Husen will recognise here all the qualities which make him a man both competent and respected in his field: precision in the analysis of facts, moderation in the treatment of the inevitably political aspects of education and wisdom in the general approach. This particular book follows one of the two great traditions of research in educational sociology; the microsociological trend which aims to demonstrate the factors which explain, in terms of the environment of both family and school, the inequality of opportunities in teaching. Of course, frequent reference is made to the other trend, the macrosociological, which tends to analyse the relationship between social structures and the phenomenon of inequality of opportunities. But these references are often made to underline the character of these works, whether it be perilous, or, as where Marxists are concerned, naive. On the other hand, Husen's book highlights perfectly the paradox which exists between the egalitarian ideology of school and the fact that the industrial society, or post-industrial, if one prefers this terminology, remains a meritocracy, that is to say, that it appreciates above all outstanding abilities, and it relies on the school system to determine these abilities. Husen goes as far as to say that school is charged with the creation of these abilities by a system of selection which he analyses particularly well. He seems then to admit that the primary function of school is the perpetuation of social hierarchies. This analysis had already been made by many people, the first of whom was Pitirim Sorokin in I927 (Social Mobility, reprinted in I959 in Social and Cultural Mobility, Glencoe, Ill., Free Press) who, with perfect conciseness, affirmed that school should sort out pupils in such a way as to ensure the closest possible correspondence between the capabilities of the pupils and those demanded by the different social positions. This function of selection has since been the object of much criticism, from both Right and Left, as Husen demonstrates. The author then underlines another paradox of the school system: the constant growth of bureaucracy occurring with a similar growth in the demand to participate by those involved in school: children, parents and teachers. At this point, I personally would have preferred Torsten Husen to have insisted more on the 'negative feed-back loop' of increased bureaucracy which I would like to illustrate by the following example. As Husen recalls of Sweden in the rural school of some years ago (but not so long ago as that, I was brought up in such a school in the Belgian Ardennes in 1950) there was one single classroom in which children of all levels were together and each one followed each subject at his own level irrespective of his age or of his level in other subjects (a magnificent realisation of the Quaker adage 'The Spirit speaking to my own condition'). Moreover, the more advanced children helped the less advanced children (it is thus that I discovered at the age of 9 years that my friend Lambert Meunier, who was I3 years old, was dyslexic