A comparison of A‐level performance in economics and business studies: How much more difficult is economics?

Abstract

This paper uses ALIS data to compare academic performance in two subjects often viewed as relatively close substitutes for one another at A-level. The important role of GCSE achievement is confirmed for both subjects. There is evidence of strong gender effects and variation in outcomes across Examination Boards. A counterfactual exercise suggests that if the sample of Business Studies candidates had studied Economics nearly 40% of those who obtained a grade C or better in the former subject would not have done so in the latter. The opposite exercise suggests that 12% more Economics candidates would have achieved a grade C or better if they had taken Business Studies. In order to render a Business Studies A-level grade comparable to an Economics one in terms of relative difficulty, we estimate that a downward adjustment of 1.5 UCAS points should be applied to the former subject. This adjustment is lower than that suggested by correction factors based on conventional subject pair analysis for these two subjects.

Modelling Curriculum Choice at A-level: Why is Business Studies More Popular than Economics?

“…As A-level performance in Economics and Business Studies is not the primary focus of this paper, the performance equations are not the subject of detailed discussion here.The estimated equations are shown in Table A2 in the appendix.These are very similar to the results in Reilly and Bachan (2005) and confirm some established findings of the importance of prior attainment, gender, examination board and school type on A-level performance.The principal difference from the result in Reilly and Bachan (2005) is the inclusion of the variables relating to the students' attitudes towards their studies. Not surprisingly, these variables do have an influence upon performance, more so in the case of Economics than Business Studies.…”

“…First, a performance equation is estimated which provides predictions of how each student would perform in each subject.The difference between a student's predicted performance in the two subjects gives an estimate of the student's aptitude for the subjects and hence of their relative difficulty. In the second stage, this predicted difference is used as an explanatory variable in a subject choice equation, with the prior hypothesis that a student's greater aptitude for a subject will make them more likely to choose to study that subject.The first stage of the analysis borrows the methodology employed by Reilly and Bachan (2005) to model student performance in Economics and Business Studies and the estimated equation is virtually identical to theirs.The real focus of this paper is the second stage -the subject choice equation.…”

“…A full list of the explanatory variables in this model is shown in Table A2 in the appendix. Full details of the methodology utilised to estimate this equation are given in Reilly and Bachan (2005).…”

“…location, funding, staff/pupil ratios, numbers on roll, teacher or class characteristics) to the individual level data used here. In addition, it did not prove possible to identify prior attainment in either GCSE Economics or Business Studies (if taken) for the sample of students.The data set employed in this study has been fully described elsewhere (Reilly and Bachan, 2005). For convenience it may be instructive to briefly examine some of the key characteristics of the data set that relate to its current use.…”

“…It is argued that the perceived difficulty between these two subjects is an important factor in explaining Economic's declining enrolments and Business Studies' relative rise in popularity over the past decade.The observed trends are often taken as a reflection of a rational reaction by students to move towards the 'easier' Business Studies and away from the 'harder' Economics Evans, 2000, 2001;Bachan and Reilly, 2003;Reilly and Bachan, 2005).…”