Educational assortative mating: a micro‐educational approach

This article presents a new way of analysing educational assortative mating patterns, using a detailed ‘micro‐educational’ classification capturing both hierarchical and horizontal forms of educational differentiation. Taking advantage of rich Danish population data, we apply log‐linear models that...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inThe British journal of sociology Vol. 70; no. 4; pp. 1245 - 1275
Main Authors Andrade, Stefan B., Thomsen, Jens‐Peter
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published England Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.09.2019
Subjects
Adult
Assortative mating
Classification
Denmark
Differentiation
disaggregated educational classification
Education
Educational assortative mating
educational homogamy
Educational Status
Female
field of study
Hierarchies
Homogamy
Humans
Income - statistics & numerical data
Linear analysis
Linear Models
log‐linear models
Low income groups
Male
Marriage
Mating
Middle Aged
returns to education
Socioeconomic Factors
Denmark
field of study
log-linear models
Educational assortative mating
educational homogamy
disaggregated educational classification
returns to education
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:This article presents a new way of analysing educational assortative mating patterns, using a detailed ‘micro‐educational’ classification capturing both hierarchical and horizontal forms of educational differentiation. Taking advantage of rich Danish population data, we apply log‐linear models that include four ways of measuring educational homogamy patterns: (a) by returns to education, (b) by macro‐education (five aggregated levels), (c) by field of study (16 categories), and (d) by a disaggregated micro‐educational classification, combining levels and fields of study (54 groups). Our results show declines in educational homogamy from 1984 to 2013, but the odds ratios of being educationally homogamous at the university college and university levels remain of substantial magnitude, by both the macro‐ and micro‐educational measures. The micro‐educational classification outperforms all other measures in explaining the associations in the homogamy tables. The income measure (‘returns to education’) does a particularly poor job of explaining homogamy patterns from 1984 to 2013.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0007-1315
1468-4446
DOI:10.1111/1468-4446.12488