Alexander, Conley, Edin & Lein, and Waite). What key concepts and variables do some of these authors consider that the others leave out, and visa versa?Conley is so detaied in his work that I would after say that the others fall under Conley’s umbrella. Although, he focuses much more on the “pecking order.” He is so detailed, he considers the effects on women and their social attractiveness to a family migration during the formative years of a child. He considers divorce, like Waite and education, like Alexander. He considers everything in between in comparison to the other five researchers. Like Edin and Lein, Conley conducted his study in a personal observation setting for a period of time. Lareau took a different approach in a shorter period of observation in the classroom setting and chose every third child then conducted 90-120 minute interviews with the families. Lareau was much more clear in discussing concerted cultivation and natural growth. At the same time, there were definite relations to this concept in Alexander’s article. Alexander discusses the vicious circle that lower class citizens are caught in concerning education. It is also discovered here that children in middle class and upper class families are much more likely to graduate and go on to college. This is comparable to Lareau’s work. Waite is strictly focused on marriage, therefore, it is difficult to draw many similarities to any of the other five works.It appears to me that one can apply the Wisconsin model to Alexander, Lareau and Conley in his introduction on the narrative of Bill Clinton and his brother. Of course, one can only assume where the major variable could have occurred with Clinton’s brother other than the nurturing from his mother. Possibly, there was a major variable in the social influences between the two considering they were half-brothers.