social background and university access. qualifications and degree program choice. dani torrents...
TRANSCRIPT
Social background and university access. Qualifications and degree program choice.
Dani Torrents & Helena TroianoI Conferencia Ibérica de Sociología de la Educación
Lisboa, 9-11th July 2015
This communication has support of OGID (UAB)
Research frame
• “Massification” of university, leads to “democratization”?
Analysis of access inequalities
Access yes/no Maximally Maintained Inequality (Raftery & Hout)
What? Degree/university Effectively Maintained Inequality (Lucas)
How? Course compagination Acce
ss
stra
tegi
es
Research frame
• Social background in educational choices:– Primary effects: educational performance,
skills. • Qualifications
– Secondary effects: cost-benefit evaluation. • Price• Difficulty• Labor market expectations
Research frame
• Transition to non-compulsory education by social background: – Compensation effect (Bernardi & Cebolla)
inequality by social background is greatest among students with the lowest grades
Our research
• The research we are carrying out, is an PhD project of access strategies to university.
• Enrollment data of Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. 5.751 first-year students in 76 degree programs.
• We analyze 2012: rise of taxes around 66% on average.
Model of analysis
Qualifications
Degree program (price)
Social background
Model of analysis
• Degree price (Catalunya): – High price: 35,77€ & 39,53€/tuiton fee
– Low price: 25,27€/tuiton fee
• Qualifications: – From mean of all first-year students: high and low qualifications.
• Social background: – Index of educational and occupational background.
3 levels.
Hypothesis
• Same level of qualification, different degree program choice by social background. – Once primary effects are controlled,
what about secondary effects?
Results • Degree program (price) by social background
Degree priceLow
High
Soci
al b
ackg
roun
d
Low class
Middel class
High class
Results • Qualifications by social background (primary effects)
QualificationsHigh
Low
Soci
al b
ackg
roun
d
Low class
Middel class
High class
Results • Interaction of social background and qualifications
Degree priceLow
High
Soci
al b
ackg
roun
d
Hig
h qu
alifi
catio
nsLo
w q
ualifi
catio
ns
Low class
Middel class
High class
Low class
Middel class
High class
Conclusions
• Same level of qualification, different degree program choice by social background. – Controlled primary effects, there is a relation for high
qualified students.
Which degree programs?
Low marks students
Law, Sociology, Psychology, Humanities & Engineering
High marks High class:
Science & Bioscience
Low class: Nursery, Education & Business studies
Results (annex)• LogLinear model: K3 effects <0.05
[marks social background degree price]
• Probability change when primary effects are controlled
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3Exp(B) sig Exp(B) sig Exp(B) sig
High SB (reference) - - - - - - Medium SB 0.87 * - ns - ns Low SB 0.58 *** 0.67 *** 5.21 ***
Qualifications (numeric) 1.4 *** 1.53 ***
Qual*Medium SB - ns
Qual*LowSB 0.79 ***
Conclusions
• For degree choice, inequality by social background is greatest among students with the highest grades.
• EMI. Horizontal stratification. Marks
Prob
abili
ty h
igh
pric
e de
gree
s
High backgorund
Low backgorund
Conclusions
• Possible mechanisms? – Relative Risk Aversion? Avoid demotion.– Different risk management? Low social
backgrounds with high marks is not enough to?
– Different subject preferences or evaluation of work return? Construction of preferences in a non-perfect degree market.
