Curricular Choice: A Test of a Rational Choice Model of Education

Abstract

Rational choice theories of education view student's educational decision as a sequence of binary choices between options that entail long-term utility and options that reduce short-term risk of failure. One of the best articulated models of educational choice asserts that choice between alternative options is affected by students' utility considerations, their expectations regarding the odds of success or failure in alternative educational options, and their motivation to avoid downward social mobility. We evaluated these propositions using data on students' curricular choices in Tel Aviv-Jaffa high schools. We found that educational choice was affected by subjective utility and failure expectations, but not by class maintenance motivations. Just as important, and contrary to the model's main assertion, educational inequality between social strata was not mediated by any of these choice mechanisms. Finally, and importantly, about a fifth of the students in Tel Aviv-Jaffa did not choose between long-term utility and short-term risks, but combined the two. These students, the hedgers, combined the riskier scientific subjects that are expected to yield long-term utility with social sciences and the humanities that reduce the risk of failure in the short term, but are not expected to yield large long-term utilities. The hedgers, moreover, were shown to be disproportionately female and drawn from disadvantaged social strata. These results suggest that educational systems that allow multiple rather than alternative choices may enhance the attainment of working-class youth because they enable them to opt for long term utility while providing a safety-net in the form of additional safer subjects.

Educational Choices and Social Interactions: A Formal Model and a Computational Test

“…Quite the contrary, the 'explanatory' hierarchy established on the basis of the dissimilarity index reduction is very much in line with statistically based empirical studies on educational inequalities which suggest that, while ability/cognitive skills systematically exhibit very high predictive power (see, for instance, Gabay-Egozi et al, 2010;Stocke´, 2007), peer effects, when statistically significant, tend to be relatively weak (for an overall assessment, see, for instance, Breen & Jonsson, 2005, p. 229). In this respect, the main contribution of the present simulation-based study is its demonstration that, although their quantitatively average net effect might be modest, dyadic social interactions should not be discarded on a theoretical level because, without them, the actual level of educational inequality could not be accounted for.…”

“…From an empirical point of view, while still unclear the extent to which the social differentiation of education benefits is due to status-maintenance concerns, as Breen and Goldthorpe (1997) assume, and how intensely these concerns and cost perceptions only drive secondary effects (see Gabay-Egozi et al, 2010, andStocke´, 2007), it is empirically proven that both benefit and cost subjective perceptions of education tend to be more favourable, the higher the group to which the agent belongs (see, for instance, Becker, 2003, pp. 19-21;Need & de Jong, 2000, p. 88;Stocke´, 2007, p. 512).…”

“…As a consequence, the members of higher social groups should succeed at a higher rate at each educational transition, thereby ending up with higher educational credentials. However, after around two decades of statistical-based empirical tests (see, among others, Ballarino & Bernardi, 2001;Becker, 2003;Breen & Yaish, 2006;Cobalti, 1992;Davies, Heinesen, & Holm, 2002;Gabay-Egozi, Shavit, & Yaish, 2010;Hillmert & Jacob, 2003;Holm & Jaeger, 2008;Manzo, 2006;Mastekaasa, 2006;Need & de Jong, 2000;Raftery & Hout, 1993;Schizzerotto, 1997;Stocke´, 2007;Van de Werfhorst & Hofstede, 2007), while several pieces of the theoretical framework have received empirical support -such as the systematic variation of ability, of perception of success probability and of educational aspirations across social groups (see, for instance, Becker, 2003;Need & de Jong, 2000;Stocke´, 2007) -still unclear is the extent to which these micro-level factors really impact on individuals' educational decisions (see, for instance, Stocke´, 2007;Van de Werfhorst & Hofstede, 2007;Gabay-Egozi et al, 2010). As recently acknowledged by Kronenberg and Kalter (2012), when one inspects the published empirical results, one of the most striking findings is that no matter what indicator of ability and perceived benefits and costs is adopted, the effect of social background on educational choices and attainment is still substantial.…”

Explicating Individual Training Decisions

“…In one of its first applications to motivation in a working environment context, Georgopoulos et al (1957) suggest that individual productivity depends on the degree to which one sees productivity as being instrumental for the achievement of personal goals. Over the past few decades, instrumentality theory and related theories have been applied to many different research questions in educational and occupational contexts-for example, in psychological research on attitudes/preferences (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980), role behavior (Kinicki 1989), goal setting and commitment in the work-space (Lawler and Suttle 1973), job performance (Galbraith and Cummings 1967), occupational choice and turnover (Osborn 1990;Berger and D'Ascoli 2012), job satisfaction and training transfer (Jodlbauer et al 2011;Gegenfurtner 2013), learning intentions (Kyndt et al 2011), and students' study decisions (Gabay-Egozi et al 2010).…”

Summarizing primary and secondary effects

“…One strand of research directly estimates the theoretical parameters governing the model of relative risk aversion by Breen and Goldthorpe (1997) (Becker, 2003;Becker & Hecken, 2009;Breen & Yaish, 2006;Gabay-Egozi, Shavit, & Yaish, 2010;Holm & Jaeger, 2008;Jacob & Weiss, 2011;Jaeger & Holm, 2012;Need & de Jong, 2001;Stocké, 2007;van de Werfhorst & Hofstede, 2007), while another strand indirectly infers the relative importance of secondary effects over primary effects from observed correlations between social class, educational decisions, and academic ability or performance (Becker, 2009;Boado, 2011;Contini & Scagni, 2011;Davies, Heinesen, & Holm, 2002;Erikson, 2007;Erikson et al, 2005;Erikson & Rudolphi, 2010;Jackson, 2010Jackson, , 2013Jackson et al, 2007;Kloosterman et al, 2009;Neugebauer, 2010;Neugebauer & Schindler, 2012;Schindler & Lörz, 2012;Schindler & Reimer, 2010). In analyses using discrete measures of social class, this latter strand of research is characterized by producing a plethora of parameters, complicating comparisons across birth cohorts or countries or both.…”