본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기
22대 대한민국 국회 국회정보길라잡이 국회의원검색
회원가입 로그인
HOME

정보검색

소장정보 검색

국회도서관 홈으로 정보검색 소장정보 검색
결과 내 검색 동의어 포함
결과 내 검색 동의어 포함

-

목차보기

Title page

Contents

Abstract 3

1. Introduction 4

2. Setting and Data 10

2.1. Admission to High School Majors in Sweden 10

2.2. Data 12

2.3. Major Choices and Cuto 14

3. Model 15

3.1. Using Preferred Choices in an RD Design 15

3.2. Threats to Validity 17

4. First Stages 18

5. Theories of Family Spillovers 20

6. Aggregate Estimates 22

7. Sibling Spillovers by Gender Mix 24

8. Intergenerational Spillovers by Gender Mix 27

9. Specification Checks 29

10. Estimates by Gender Makeup of Majors 31

11. Impact on Gender Imbalances across Majors 34

12. Conclusion 36

References 36

Appendix A: Inferring GPA Cutoffs 56

Tables

Table 1. Placebo test: Does a younger sibling's first-choice major affect their older sibling's ex-ante choice? 47

Table 2. First stage estimates for the probability of enrolling or completing a first-choice major 47

Table 3. Reduced form and IV estimates of the probability of choosing the same first-choice major as an older sibling or parent 48

Table 4. Correlational estimates 48

Table 5. Sibling estimates by gender mix and birth spacing 49

Table 6. Intergenerational estimates by gender mix 50

Table 7. Sibling and intergenerational reduced form estimates using alternative specifications 51

Table 8. Sibling estimates as a function of the gender makeup of majors 52

Table 9. Intergenerational estimates as a function of the gender makeup of majors 53

Table 10. Counterfactual gender shares for majors in the absence of family peer effects 54

Figures

Figure 1. Cutoff GPA distributions 41

Figure 2. Probability a younger brother chooses Engineering if their older brother chose Engineering 42

Figure 3. Distribution of current minus lagged admission cutoff GPA, 1977-1991 42

Figure 4. Share of individuals admitted to their first-choice major, 1977-1991 43

Figure 5. First stage: Share of older siblings enrolling in their first-choice major, by gender mix 43

Figure 6. First stage: Share of parents completing their first-choice major, by gender mix 44

Figure 7. Reduced form: Probability a younger sibling chooses the same first-choice major as their older sibling, by gender mix 45

Figure 8. Reduced form: Probability a child chooses the same first-choice major as their parent, by gender mix 46

Appendix Tables

Table A1. Course requirements for each of the five academic programs 62

Table A2. Summary statistics for all applicants with a first-choice academic program 1977-1991 62

Table A3. Comparison of major cutoffs across years within the same school region 63

Table A4. Correlational estimates by gender mix 64

Table A5. Sibling estimates by parent's educational background 65

Table A6. Intergenerational estimates by birth order 66

Table A7. Alternative measures for whether a younger sibling or child copies their older sibling or parent 67

Table A8. Estimates corresponding to Tables 5 and 6, also including individuals who drop out after ninth grade 68

Table A9. Estimates corresponding to Table 5, limiting the sample to older siblings whose first and second best major choices are both available at the school they are admitted to 69

Table A10. Estimates corresponding to Table 6, limiting the sample to parents whose first and second best major choices are both available at the school they are admitted to 70

Table A11. Sibling and intergenerational estimates for each of the five majors 71

Table A12. Changes in the characteristics of the student peer group an older sibling or parent is admitted to 72

Table A13. Multiple inference adjustments for the reduced form estimates in Tables 8 and 9 73

Appendix Figures

Figure A1. Applications to academic high school majors, 1977-1991 and 2011-2019 57

Figure A2. Probability a younger brother chooses a non-Engineering major if their older brother chose Engineering 58

Figure A3. Smoothness of predetermined demographic variables at the cutoff 59

Figure A4. First stage: Share of parents enrolling in their first-choice major, by gender mix 60

Figure A5. Comparison of the common slope versus baseline models 61

추천서가 (다양한 추천 자료를 만나보세요)

권호기사보기

권호기사 목록 테이블로 기사명, 저자명, 페이지, 원문, 기사목차 순으로 되어있습니다.
기사명 저자명 페이지 원문 기사목차