A Treatise on the Family. G. S. Becker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1981. Gary Becker is one of the most famous and influential economists of the second half of the 20th century, a fervent contributor to and expounder of the University of Chicago free-market philosophy, and winner of the 1992 Nobel Prize in economics. Although any book with the word "treatise" in its title is clearly intended to have an impact, one coming from someone as brilliant and controversial as Becker certainly had such a lofty goal. It has received many article-length reviews in several disciplines (Ben-Porath, 1982; Bergmann, 1995; Foster, 1993; Hannan, 1982), which is one measure of its scholarly importance, and yet its impact is, I think, less than it may have initially appeared, especially for scholars with substantive interests in the family. This book is, its title notwithstanding, more about economics and the economic approach to behavior than about the family. In the first sentence of the preface, Becker writes "In this book, I develop an economic or rational choice approach to the family." Lest anyone accuse him of focusing on traditional (i.e., material) economics topics, such as family income, poverty, and labor supply, he immediately emphasizes that those topics are not his focus. "My intent is more ambitious: to analyze marriage, births, divorce, division of labor in households, prestige, and other non-material behavior with the tools and framework developed for material behavior." Indeed, the book includes chapters on many of these issues. One chapter examines the principles of the efficient division of labor in households, three analyze marriage and divorce, three analyze various child-related issues (fertility and intergenerational mobility), and others focus on broader family issues, such as intrafamily resource allocation. His analysis is not, he believes, constrained by time or place. His intention is "to present a comprehensive analysis that is applicable, at least in part, to families in the past as well as the present, in primitive as well as modern societies, and in Eastern as well as Western cultures." His tone is profoundly conservative and utterly skeptical of any constructive role for government programs. There is a clear sense of how much better things were in the old days of a genderbased division of labor and low market-work rates for married women. Indeed, Becker is ready and able to show in Chapter 2 that such a state of affairs was efficient and induced not by market or societal discrimination (although he allows that it might exist) but by small underlying household productivity differences that arise primarily from what he refers to as "complementarities" between caring for young children while carrying another to term. Most family scholars would probably find that an unconvincingly simple explanation for a profound and complex phenomenon. What, then, is the salient contribution of Treatise on the Family? It is not literally the idea that economics could be applied to the nonmarket sector and to family life because Becker had already established that with considerable success and influence. At its core, microeconomics is simple, characterized by a belief in the importance of prices and markets, the role of self-interested or rational behavior, and, somewhat less centrally, the stability of preferences. It was Becker's singular and invaluable contribution to appreciate that the behaviors potentially amenable to the economic approach were not limited to phenomenon with explicit monetary prices and formal markets. Indeed, during the late 1950s and throughout the 1960s, he did undeniably important and pioneering work extending the domain of economics to such topics as labor market discrimination, fertility, crime, human capital, household production, and the allocation of time. Nor is Becker's contribution the detailed analyses themselves. Many of them are, frankly, odd, idiosyncratic, and off-putting. …

A Treatise on the Family

EDITORIAL BOARD Robert Davison Aviles, Bradley University Harley E. Baker, California State University–Channel Islands Jean-Guy Blais, Universite de Montreal, Canada Catherine Y. Chang, Georgia State University Robert C. Chope, San Francisco State University Kevin O. Cokley, University of Missouri, Columbia Patricia B. Elmore, Southern Illinois University Shawn Fitzgerald, Kent State University John J. Fremer, Educational Testing Service Vicente Ponsoda Gil, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Spain Jo-Ida C. Hansen, University of Minnesota Charles C. Healy, University of California at Los Angeles Robin K. Henson, University of North Texas Flaviu Adrian Hodis, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand Janet K. Holt, Northern Illinois University David A. Jepsen, The University of Iowa Gregory Arief D. Liem, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University Wei-Cheng J. Mau, Wichita State University Larry Maucieri, Governors State College Patricia Jo McDivitt, Data Recognition Corporation Peter F. Merenda, University of Rhode Island Matthew J. Miller, University of Maryland Ralph O. Mueller, University of Hartford Jane E. Myers, The University of North Carolina at Greensboro Philip D. Parker, University of Western Sydney Ralph L. Piedmont, Loyola College in Maryland Alex L. Pieterse, University at Albany, SUNY Nicholas J. Ruiz, Winona State University James P. Sampson, Jr., Florida State University William D. Schafer, University of Maryland, College Park William E. Sedlacek, University of Maryland, College Park Marie F. Shoffner, University of Virginia Len Sperry, Florida Atlantic University Kevin Stoltz, University of Mississippi Jody L. Swartz-Kulstad, Seton Hall University Bruce Thompson, Texas A&M University Timothy R. Vansickle, Minnesota Department of Education Steve Vensel, Palm Beach Atlantic University Dan Williamson, Lindsey Wilson College F. Robert Wilson, University of Cincinnati

measurement and evaluation in counseling and Development

The book Inequality by Christopher Jencks is in one sense an arid waste of somewhat confusing and misleading statistics between chapter one and chapter nine, and, in another sense, a destructive, unscientific critique of American education and families. Jencks' interpretation comes down hard on his basic feeling that "The crucial problem today is that relatively few people view income inequality as a serious problem; indeed the Nixon administration apparently convinced itself that income was too equally distributed in 1968 and that the rich needed additional incentives to get even richer . The Kennedy and Johnson administrations were only marginally better. Neither made any explicit effort to equalize incomes; the subject was hardly discussed. Instead reformers focused on equalizing opportunity." This view is probably correct but it is no excuse for an unscholarly, unscientific polemic against far from "peripheral institutions," which is Jencks' evaluation of the American schools. This book states

Inequality, A Reassessment of the Effect of Family and Schooling in America.

Going to College tells the powerful story of how high school students make choices about postsecondary education. Drawing on their unprecedented nine-year study of high school students, the authors explore how students and their parents negotiate these important decisions. Family background, finances, education, information-all influence students' plans after high school and the career paths they pursue, as do the more subtle messages delivered by parents and counselors which shape adolescents' self-expectations. For high school guidance counselors, college admissions counselors, parents and teachers, and public policy makers, this book is a valuable resource that explains the decision-making process and helps adults to help students make appropriate choices. The authors identify predisposition, search, and choice as the three stages in the student decision-making process. Predisposition refers to the plans students develop for education or work after they graduate from high school. The search stage involves students discovering and evaluating a variety of colleges and universities. In the choice stage, students choose a school to attend from among a list of institutions that are being seriously considered. Understanding exactly how students move through the predisposition, search, and choice stages of the college decision-making process can help students and parents prepare themselves for this process and consider a wider array of options. For education professionals, understanding this process can lead to new initiatives to guide students and families effectively-by providing better incentives for college savings, for example, or devising more effective early information programs about postsecondary education. Going to Collegeis the first book to seriously study over an extended period the decisions that have a pervasive and lasting impact on individual careers, livelihoods, and lifestyles. The authors conclude with important recommendations for improving academic support, exploring various financial options, providing early encouragement-in other words, for recognizing the factors that influence students' decisions, and knowing when to pay attention to them.

Going to College: How Social, Economic, and Educational Factors Influence the Decisions Students Make

Arthur Chickering is Distinguished Professor of Higher Education at Memphis State University. On leave from the Directorship of the Center for the Study of Higher Education at Memphis State, he is Visiting Professor at George Mason University. Zelda Gamson is a sociologist who holds appointments at the John W. McCormack Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Massachusetts-Boston and in the Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education at the University of Michigan.

Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education: Faculty Inventory. Institutional Inventory.

Using longitudinal data from the Wabash National Study of Liberal Arts Education, our findings suggest that first-generation students are at a significant disadvantage across cognitive and psychosocial outcomes compared to students whose parents have at least some postsecondary education. Furthermore, we tested for the conditional effects of good practices on first-year outcomes and found that effects of good practices on both cognitive and psychosocial outcomes differed in magnitude, and sometimes in direction, for first-generation versus non-first-generation students.

First-Generation Undergraduate Students and the Impacts of the First Year of College: Additional Evidence

We test the assumption that peer and/or familial influences are partially responsible fore the expectation gender gap, and examine the differences in this gap by race/ethnicity. We find that the effects of social capital differ by gender but that the gender gap in expectations does not differ by race.

Why Do More Women than Men Want to Earn a Four-Year Degree? Exploring the Effects of Gender, Social Origin, and Social Capital on Educational Expectations.

Using longitudinal data from the Wabash National Study of Liberal Arts Education, this study measured the impact of first-year seminars on college students’ life-long learning orientations. The fin...

https://www.wesleyan.edu/reslife//faculty-academic-partners/The_Impact_of_FirstYearSeminars.pdf

The Impact of First- Year Seminars on College Students' Life-long Learning Orientations

A substantial proportion of college students have always worked while pursuing their college degree. However, despite decades of research on working college students, very little consensus has emerged about the effect of work on college student development. This study analyzes Wabash National Study (WNS) data from 2,931 first-year students at 19 institutions to examine the effect of work on leadership skill development. Findings show that, after accounting for the effect of precollege characteristics and college engagement experiences, work can have a substantial positive effect on leadership development. Off-campus employment proved to be particularly influential even though extensive off-campus work simultaneously undercut the effect of peer interaction and cocurricular involvement on leadership.
	 A substantial proportion of college students have always worked while pursuing their college degree. However, despite decades of research on working college students, very little consensus has emerged about the effect of work on college student development. This study analyzes Wabash National Study (WNS) data from 2,931 first-year students at 19 institutions to examine the effect of work on leadership skill development. Findings show that, after accounting for the effect of pre-college characteristics and college engagement experiences, work can have a substantial positive effect on leadership development. Off-campus employment proved to be particularly influential even though extensive off-campus work simultaneously undercut the effect of peer interaction and cocurricular involvement on leadership.

The Effects of Work on Leadership Development Among First-Year College Students

Using longitudinal data, this chapter expands the use of Weidman's Model of Undergraduate Socialization by applying it to components of college student socialization, social class, and race and how these elements work together to influence need for cognition.

Ryan D. Padgett

Papers

First-Generation Undergraduate Students and the Impacts of the First Year of College: Additional Evidence

Why Do More Women than Men Want to Earn a Four-Year Degree? Exploring the Effects of Gender, Social Origin, and Social Capital on Educational Expectations.

The Impact of First- Year Seminars on College Students' Life-long Learning Orientations

The Effects of Work on Leadership Development Among First-Year College Students

The impact of college student socialization, social class, and race on need for cognition