Social origins, relative risk aversion and track choice

Abstract

This study develops and tests the hypothesis that information biases concerning the perceived extent of risk of educational options fuel social inequalities in track choice. In particular, it is argued that low-educated families are more concerned than college-educated families with the risks of dropout in the academic track, even when their children perform well at school. Moreover, they overestimate the risks of low occupational outcomes associated with academic diplomas. These information biases enhance their propensity to select vocational tracks, which are perceived as safer options, even when their children have the potential to succeed in the academic path. Survey data from Italy were used to assess these misperceptions and experimental evidence is presented concerning their causal effect on track choices. To correct these misperceptions, we designed a light information intervention, which was nested in a longitudinal survey to assess the impact of this intervention on students’ track choices. Both survey and experimental results corroborated our hypothesis that information biases contribute to social inequalities in track choice.

Yes, You Can! Effects of Transparent Admission Standards on High School Track Choice: A Randomized Field Experiment

“…The point estimates for the average direct causal effects on grammar school applications and admissions among the seeds, however, are all in the expected positive direction, reaching 9 percentage points for both the probability of application and the probability of admission. This effect is similar in size to the effects reported in related information campaigns on enrollment in academically oriented secondary schools (Barone et al 2018;Dinkelman and Martinez 2014). Our estimate corresponds to a Cohen's d effect size of 0.2 on treated seeds, which our study was not powered to detect at the conventional 0.05 level of statistical significance.…”

“…First, our results indicate that adolescent students appear to have considerable agency in secondary track choice. Without denying the importance of parents in steering educational decisions (Barone et al 2018), our field experiment generates effects by intervening on students', but not on parents', information set. Second, students' perceptions of their probability of admission appear biased.…”

“…For example, they might provide information to all students rather than only selected seeds; incorporate timely reminders or reinforcements closer to the date of the application deadline; and provide information on threshold values for all admissions criteria, not just grades. If students are additionally informed about the returns to education (Barone et al 2018), future studies should evaluate interactions and possible trade-offs between these elements.…”

“…One group of studies provided information in writing via websites (Oreopoulos and Dunn 2013;McGuigan, McNally, and Wyness 2016), surveys (Booij, Leuven, and Oosterbeek 2012), or brochures (Hoxby and Turner 2013). Other studies provided information in person or over the phone, through a teacher, or a trained specialist (Jensen 2010;Loyalka et al 2013;Kerr et al 2014;Carrell and Sacerdote 2013;Castleman, Page, and Schooley 2014;Bettinger et al 2012;Barone et al 2017Barone et al , 2018Ehlert et al 2017;Peter and Zambre 2017). A third group of studies provided information via role models with similar backgrounds as the targeted students who offered personal testimonies about their own educational careers (Dinkelman and Martínez 2014;Nguyen 2008;Herber 2015).…”

Barriers to accessing formal childcare services for underprivileged populations: a cognitive approach

“…accès aux études supérieures, aux services publics), l'accessibilité perçue des structures pourrait être plus faible pour les populations défavorisées, même dans le cas où l'accessibilité réelle est favorable aux familles défavorisées (Aksztejn, 2020;Keller, 2003). De même, du fait de ce défaut d'informations, en particulier sur les aides disponibles, les coûts perçus par les familles pourraient être plus élevés que les coûts objectifs (Barone et al, 2018).…”