Educational pathways of minority youth in Norway: intersections of gender, ethnicity and social class

Educational aspirations during lower secondary school and choice of upper secondary education are important for young people’s future trajectories into higher education and labour market positions. In line with ideas about reflexive, autonomous individuals (Giddens, 1991), choice of education is often represented as a young person’ individual decision, and educational guidance as aimed at discovering what ‘fits’ an individual’s personality, interests and abilities. Educational aspirations and choices are also social patterns that are reproduced. Some population categories represent exceptions from expected patterns of social reproduction of educational level and professions. In several countries, one such category is young people from families with migration experiences (Lauglo, 2000; Modood, 2004). In Norway, students have a legal right to non-compulsory upper secondary schooling and 96 percent of the students continue from lower to upper secondary school. In spite of positive developments regarding minority youths’ completion of upper secondary and higher education in later years, studies still persistently show lower educational attainment among minority youth, particularly among boys (Fekjaer, 2006). However, in lower secondary school, minor ity youth tend to have markedly higher educational aspirations and stronger learning motivation than their majority peers, as well as greater effort in school and strong adherence to school values (Lauglo, 2000) despite lower educational attainment or lower socio-economic backgrounds. In addition, gender differences in educational aspirations seem to be smaller among minority youth. The principal objective of the study in progress that will be presented in this paper, is to describe how processes relating to gendered, ethnic and class-based identities influence young people’s educational choices. The study is undertaken as a PhD project in social anthropology. The methodological approach is ethnographic longitudinal fieldwork in two multicultural lower secondary schools in Oslo. The study is part of a larger project that also include quantitative analyses of longitudinal data covering 9th graders in Oslo 2006 through four data collections during lower and upper secondary school.

Higher education as formation of the self and citizenship: an ethnography of the University Students from Amman, Jordan

My interest in higher education and citizenship in the Middle East at large and in Jordan in particular is fostered by some of the reflections Eickelman proposed (1992). Being a quite recent phenomenon, intimately linked with the more general topic of state formation it seemed to me more suitable to study it in a little country with a recent history (a field study left almost unexplored until now as far as Jordan is concerned, to the best of my knowledge, since Antoun 1994 focuses on the migration as a quest for higher education). The process of state formation in Jordan is quite studied. I thus intended to study the higher education policies as an attempt both to create a national citizenry and more recently as a way of controlling the more problematic part of the population (youth, which constitutes more than the double of the population. See UNDP and Ministry of Planning 2000). How do the young students enter the university system, and in which way does this system work? How is this system designed, in order to retain social control of the students (since they are usually perceived to be a factor of social and political instability, as in Iran or in Egypt)? Is there any significant difference between different faculties? And if so, why? My conclusions at this stage are that the university system is an integral part of the survival of the regime. The system works quite well, and Jordan has one of the best educational position in the region. Yet there are important distinctions to be made: the access to the better faculties is socially selective while the less valued faculties are left to the poorer and less wealthy youth. This results in a different treatment of the students and of the courses that I analysed. In the better faculties the teaching standards are quite high, and the relationship between professors and students is almost on a same-level base, while in the less privileged faculties the opposite is true. Thus we can observe a concrete politics of divide et impera intended to split the youth in two. For the more privileged there are some freedoms, both within and outside classes, designed I guess at forging them as autonomous individuals. On the opposite the less privileged are kept under tight control, even if also these students are a privileged category among youth at large.