Families and Personal Networks An International Comparative Perspective

(sharon) #1

46


zens had access to free secondary and university education. But, on the
other hand, being involved in higher education also exempted men
from mandatory conscription, which led many to extend their enrol-
ment in education up to the equivalent of master’s degrees. The clear
majority of Lithuanians (78.4%) belonging to these cohorts completed
at least one stage of tertiary education (university level), although most
obtained a lower level diploma (49.6% with a degree equivalent to the
baccalaureate). Just 16.7% have credentials corresponding to the higher
levels of secondary education (i.e. 11 or 12 school years – depending on
graduation period) and only 4.5% completed just the lower levels of
secondary education (8 or 10 school years – depending on graduation
period).^4
In Portugal, there are major differences in the educational profiles of
the cohorts. In the 1950–1955 cohort, only 8.1% of individuals obtained
a university degree. Most individuals either completed primary school
(first stage of basic education: 53.2%) or the lower second stage of basic
education (20.1%). Furthermore, 7.5% of individuals in this cohort do
not have any formal education whatsoever. This is in sharp contrast to
those born in 1970–1975, the first cohort to enter primary school imme-
diately after the revolution. In this second cohort, most individuals nev-
ertheless completed just the lower second stage of basic education
(41.4%) and 7.5% did not go beyond primary education. However,
those who completed secondary education went from 11.0% in the first
cohort to 23.9%. And even more significantly, close to one out of four
attained a university degree.^5
Cohort differences in terms of academic achievement are not as sharp
in Switzerland, where most individuals from both cohorts completed sec-
ondary education (52.1%). Nevertheless, there are relevant differences in
post-secondary education; while individuals born in the 1950–1955
cohort mostly followed vocational training (20.1% vs. 15.6% with uni-
versity degrees), in the 1970–1975 cohort there is a trend reversal, and
university degrees prevail (21.5% vs. 15.2% who followed post- secondary
vocational non-university education).^6
Another fundamental indicator in depicting these cohorts is the occu-
pational status of individuals. In the absence of more fine-grained data,
occupational status gives us a generic outlook on individual socio-


V. Ramos et al.
Free download pdf