Skip to main content Skip to navigation

2022 Working Papers

Browse by year

Hard copy

To request a free hard copy of a paper, please contact Margaret Nash quoting the paper number.

1410 - Awarding gaps in higher education by ethnicity, schooling and family

Gianna Boero, Brian Karanja, Robin Naylor and Tammy Thiele

Previous research has established that undergraduate students in the UK who had attended private schools perform less well at university, on average, than equivalent students who had been educated at a state school prior to university (Smith and Naylor, 2001 and 2005; Crawford, 2014a). This well-known result has provided an evidence base for the use of contextualised offers in admissions across the sector (Schwartz Report, 2004; Hubble and Bolton, 2020) as an instrument for enhancing social mobility. In the current paper, we use a rich dataset for a particular university to examine whether the negative association between private schooling and class of degree awarded holds across all students, independent of ethnicity: we find that it does not. For White students, we obtain the standard result that private schooling is associated negatively with class of degree. However, in stark contrast, among students whose ethnicity is self-reported as either Black, Asian or Mixed Ethnicity, attendance at a private school prior to university is, on average, associated positively with the class of degree awarded. On further exploration, we find this is driven by a strong positive association among Black students and students of Mixed Ethnicity; the overarching category of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnicity conceals substantive differences within the category. Among Asian students, the absence of any association between private schooling and degree class, on average, masks a very strong negative association for those from lower socioeconomic status backgrounds. We discuss and interpret our results in the context of hypotheses within the literatures on schooling effects and on the ethnicity awarding gap in higher education.

1404 - The Distribution of the Gender Wage Gap : An Equilibrium Model

Sonia R. Bhalotra, Manuel Fernandez and Fan Wang

We develop an equilibrium model of the labor market to investigate the joint evolution of gender gaps in labor force participation and wages. We do this overall and by task-based occupation and skill, which allows us to study distributional effects. We structurally estimate the model using data from Mexico over a period during which women's participation increased by fty percent. We provide new evidence that male and female labor are closer substitutes in high-paying analytical task-intensive occupations than in lower-paying manual and routine task-intensive occupations. We find that demand trends favored women, especially college-educated women. Consistent with these results, we see a widening of the gender wage gap at the lower end of the distribution, alongside a narrowing at the top. On the supply side, we find that increased appliance availability was the key driver of increases in the participation of unskilled women, and fertility decline a key driver for skilled women. The growth of appliances acted to widen the gender wage gap and the decline of fertility to narrow it. We also trace equilibrium impacts of growth in college attainment, which was more rapid among women, and of emigration, which was dominated by unskilled men. Our counterfactual estimates demonstrate that ignoring the countervailing effects of equilibrium wage adjustments on labor supplies, as is commonly done in the literature, can be misleading.

1396 - Gifted Children Programs’ Short and Long-Term Impact : Higher Education, Earnings, and the Knowledge-Economy

Victor Lavy & Yoav Goldstein

We estimate the short-run and longer-term effects of gifted children programs (GCP) in high schools in Israel. The program tracks the most talented students into gifted children classes, starting 10th grade. They receive more resources in smaller classes, a unique curriculum, access to high-quality teachers, and courses in universities. We use test scores in exams that measure cognitive achievements or intelligence and ability, measured in different ages, to select a comparison group of equally gifted students from other cities where GCP was not offered at the time. Based on administrative data, we follow 22 cohorts of GCP participants who graduated high school in 1992-2013. We measure treatment effects on outcomes, ranging from high school to the labor market in their 30s and 40s. Remarkably, the results we obtain do not vary when using alternative measures of ability or in the age, they are assessed. The evidence on the impact of GCP on academic achievements in high school is mixed, some compulsory subjects are affected negatively, and fewer are affected positively. However, these estimates are very small, implying a tiny effect size. These results stand in contrast to the abundance of educational resources enjoyed by GCP participants, in addition to better peers in terms of SES background and outcomes. We discuss in this context the objective of the program to widen the scope and area of interest of its participants beyond the regular curriculum. We also highlight the potential adverse effect of the Big-Fish-Little Pond Effect. In the longer run, we find meaningful positive effects of GCP on higher education attainment. All gifted children achieve a BA degree, but a much higher share of GCP participants graduate with a double major. The effect of getting a Ph.D. is also positive, driven by more Ph.D. degrees in Elite Universities. GCP participants study more math, computer, and physical sciences but engage less in engineering programs. The net effect on STEM degrees is, therefore, zero. However, a much higher share of GCP participants graduated with two STEM majors. This evidence, along with the significant effect on a double major, suggests that GCP enhances the impact of “multipotentiality,” which characterizes many gifted adolescents. We find no effect of GCP on employment and earnings. Nor do we find that they work more than other equally talented children in the various sectors of the knowledge economy: hi-tech manufacturing, hi-tech services, and academic institutions. Finally, we examine marriage and family formation patterns as mediating effects and find no discerned GCP effects. In the short-term, medium-run, and into adulthood, these comprehensive sets of results are not qualitatively different for females and males gifted children who participated in GCP. Treatment heterogeneity by giftedness level allows us to compare our results to earlier studies that used regression discontinuity designs to identify GCP effects on only marginally eligible students for such programs. We find meaningful differences in treatment effect between marginal and inframarginal gifted children, suggesting that it is essential to examine GCP’s impact over the whole spectrum of Giftedness. Importantly, we find that GCP similarly affects low and high-SES students. Half of the students among the six youngest cohorts in our sample started the program in middle school, while the others did that in high school. We find no differences in GCP effect on high school and university outcomes by the length of the program