Summary Of Pay For The Party By Armstrong And Hamilton

On their ethnography account, Paying for the Party, Elizabeth Armstrong and Laura Hamilton draws us our attention to MU, a Midwestern public university, where they recount the stories of women adapting to college life. Drawing on their findings from their five -year study, the authors demonstrate how universities and students reproduce social inequalities by affecting not only the large-scale interactions of college campuses, but also the social interactions among students. Thus, in their book, Armstrong and Hamilton highlights how social inequality is reproduced by discussing the university's commitment to organizational imperatives, the social interactions among students and by comparing these with other disadvantage women.
In their book,
For example, Armstrong and Hamilton claim that with the decreased of financial aid and the disengagement from individuals to equity topics, many universities have replaced low- income students with more affluent, yet unqualified individuals. Even though, Armstrong and Hamilton argues that educating low- income students would fulfill the university’s compromise to equity, they mention, however, that admitting these students is hard for the university, as its too costly and resource demanding. Thus, in order to solve their solvency issues, the universities choose between individuals who are unqualified, but can pay their tuition over qualified low- income students. That said, these organizational imperatives, such as solvency creates social inequality because it forces the university to accept students based on their affluent backgrounds, while forcing them, at the same time to refuse the entry of talented, yet impoverished individuals. Therefore, the universities’ commitment to organizational imperatives enhances social inequality because it rewards and reproduces the social advantages of students who are already mobile in the system, while excluding those who are
Correspondingly, socially ambitious women performed symbolic boundaries when they seek to disengage, reduce contact and dissociate from people of low status. For example, Armstrong and Hamilton claims that many socially affluent women would avoid encountering the social isolates in order to set a higher rank for themselves. According to the authors, this in turn affected the social isolates whom experienced many academic, social and clinical repercussions. For example, Armstrong and Hamilton argues that since social isolates were alienated by their peers, they lack the social capital or the social networks to connect with other people. Especially at a university, having social capital is important because it’s an established conduit for information. For instance, people can not only learn about exciting majors and career opportunities, but can also discuss and elaborate on class materials with their friends. Therefore, since the social isolates lacked this social connection, many were prone to experience academic probation, depression and alcohol and drug abuse. Finally, all social isolates were at risk for leaving MU. That said, the exclusion of social isolates demonstrates social inequality because the women who were excluded were those who mainly lacked the social and cultural capital of the elites. Eventually, as a