Educational Differentials in the Netherlands

Abstract

In this paper, we test how well Rational Action Theory, as developed to explain educational differentials, applies in the Dutch situation. The question we address is the extent to which the mechanisms assumed to be at work can explain class and gender differentials in participation in higher education. After explaining the Dutch educational system and outlining Rational Action Theory, we formulate four hypotheses that we test using data from a panel survey among high school pupils first interviewed in 1991. Evaluating the theory, we conclude that the mechanisms assumed to be at work can indeed explain class differentials in participation in higher education. Moreover, we find support for the hypothesis that the mechanism of relative risk aversion is the most crucial factor in the model. We could not convincingly show that the theory explains gender differentials.

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

“…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.…”

Success and failure in secondary education: socio‐economic background effects on secondary school outcome in the Netherlands, 1927–1998

“…They therefore might be able to evaluate the success probability of their children more realistically, while low-educated parents might overestimate the standards of such a school and make more cautious choices. A central role here is assigned to the motive of status maintenance (or 'relative risk aversion') (Erikson and Jonsson 1996;Breen and Goldthorpe 1997;Need and de Jong 2001;Breen and Yaish 2006;Stocké 2007). Parents generally want to avoid status demotion and therefore strive for at least the same educational attainment for their children as their own.…”

Social Selectivity of Track Mobility in Secondary Schools

“…Further, highly educated parents consider the risk of failure in higher education more realistic and lower than parents who have not attended higher education. Extending this theoretical approach, the core argument of more recent approaches to explain social differences in decisions is the relative risk aversion (Breen and Goldthorpe 1997;Need and Jong 2001;Davies et al 2002;van de Werfhorst and Andersen 2005;Breen and Yaish 2006;Stocké 2007): individuals avoid downward social mobility respectively strive to maintain the family's social position across generations. In the same way, this mechanism of relative risk aversion prevents children from lower educated 749 Social selectivity of track mobility in secondary schools JACOB & TIEBEN parents to strive for an education higher than necessary to maintain their family's status, because the utility of a higher educational attainment would not outweigh the additional cost.…”