Replik Auf Den Diskussionsbeitrag Von Rolf Becker

In a previous article in this journal (Fuchs/Sixt 2007) based on an analysis with the Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) we have argued that children of educational climbers do not have educational opportunities similar to the typical educational opportunities of children on the newly achieved educational level. Even though we could demonstrate that the climbers’ children are subject to an increase of their educational opportunities compared to the level from which their parents originate, they do not reach the average of the destination level. Based on the theoretical reasoning provided by Bourdieu we argue that this educational disadvantage is caused by the lower furnishing of their families with social, cultural, and economic capital, by climbers’ employment position which is less advantageous, and also by the lower educational level of the climbers’ partners. In his detailed discussion of our analysis Rolf Becker has identified conflicting findings compared to his previous analysis based on the data of the German Lebensverlaufsstudie. In response to his critical discussion we will solve this ostensible caveat. Using again data from the SOEP we demonstrate that his seemingly contradictious findings are due to the specifics of his analytical approach. While Becker shows that the climbers’ children reach educational opportunities that are higher compared to the opportunities of children from the climbers’ level or origin (positive effect of climbing), our results indicate that their educational opportunities do not reach the level that is typically seen on the higher level of education that the educational climbers have reached for the first time (negative effect of climbing).