1 Where the Boys Aren’t: Recent Trends in U.S. College Enrollment Patterns Patricia M. Anderson...
-
Upload
rafael-keyton -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of 1 Where the Boys Aren’t: Recent Trends in U.S. College Enrollment Patterns Patricia M. Anderson...
1
Where the Boys Aren’t: Recent Trends in U.S. College Enrollment Patterns
Patricia M. AndersonDepartment of EconomicsDartmouth CollegeAnd NBER
2
“Just the Facts, Ma’am” In 1972, males made up 56 percent of
overall college enrollments
In 2004, males made up 43 percent of overall college enrollments
Similar trends are seen in full-time enrollment and degree attainment
3
Official Statistics on Fraction of College Students Who Are Male
0.38
0.40
0.42
0.44
0.46
0.48
0.50
0.52
0.54
0.56
0.58
1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Year
Frac
tion
Full-T ime Total
Source: Digest of Educational Statistics, Table 185
4
The Sample Data
October supplement to the Current Population Survey (CPS) collects information on school enrollment
Survey covers the civilian, non-institutionalized population
I look at those age 17 to 50 who have not already graduated from college
5
“Just the Facts, Ma’am” Part 2 While noisier, sample statistics reflect
the same basic trends: Fraction male 57 percent in 1972 Fraction male 44 percent in 2004
Decline in male enrollments not quite as sharp when focus only on “traditional students” Fraction male among full-time, 4-year-
college students drops from 52 percent to 46 percent over this time period
6
Sample Statistics on Fraction of College Students Who Are Male
0.4
0.42
0.44
0.46
0.48
0.5
0.52
0.54
0.56
0.58
0.6
1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Year
Frac
tion
All College Students College Students Age 18-22 4-Yr College Students Age 18-22
Source: Author Calculations from October CPS for given years
7
Some Descriptive Analysis In the early years, the older students are
more likely to be male Likely lingering effects of the Vietnam War, as
veterans benefit from the GI Bill In the later years, the older students are
more likely to be female Likely changing social climate, as previous
investment decision no longer optimal Result is a “catch-up” in educational
attainment by earlier cohort females
8
Male/Female Ratio in Enrollment and Attainment by Birth Cohort
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1951 1953 1955 1957 1959 1961 1963 1965 1967 1969 1971 1973 1975
Approximate Birth Year
Prob
abili
ty R
atio
Enrollment in 4-yr college (age 18-22) Have Degree by March 98-02
Source: Author calculations from October CPS, individual years; March CPS MORG files, pooled 1998-2002
9
Probability of Enrollment Sampled females increasingly more likely to be
enrolled than sampled males Note males more likely out of sample due to higher
incarceration and military rates Decline in male/female ratio is less steep for younger
individuals Recall patterns already seen for earlier cohorts
Conditional on high school graduation, the probability of enrollment was almost equal for younger males and females during the 1990s (later than other groups) Note males are more likely to drop out of high school
10
Male/Female Ratio on Probability of Being Enrolled in College
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Year
All Age 18-22 Age 18-22, 4-yr college Age 18-22, 4-yr college, HS grads
Source: Author calculations from October CPS for given years
11
A Simple Model of Human Capital Investment Invest in human capital as long as marginal
cost is not greater than marginal benefit For annual earnings, Y; annual costs, C;
working life, T; and discount rate, r; attend if:
0
11 11
T
tt
nct
T
ttt
ct
r
Y
r
CY
12
Implications of the Model –Less Likely to Invest:
The higher the costs of schooling Decline in male eligibility for the GI Bill
could decrease male enrollments Higher psychic costs (males tend to get
worse grades in high school) could decrease male enrollments
The higher the discount rate If increased future earnings are heavily
discounted, higher current earnings could decrease male enrollments
13
Implications of the Model –More Likely to Invest:
The longer one expects to work Social changes that lead to women expecting
longer, less interrupted careers would imply increased female college enrollments
The bigger the gap between college and high school earnings
If wages for college-educated women have increased faster than for men, or if wages for high school-educated men have increased faster than for women, then would expect increased female college enrollments
14
Determinants of Enrollment Focus on 20-year olds, by cohort A cohort is a group of 5 birth years
1953-1957, 1958-1962, etc. For each cohort, a separate linear
probability model is estimated In addition to basic demographics, the
explanatory variables are motivated by the basic human capital investment model
15
Explanatory Variables
Demographics Marital status, race, veteran status, etc.
State-level tuition, unemployment rate Economic returns
25th percentile wages for college-educated workers age 28-32 of your sex, race, state
75th percentile wages of HS-educated workers age 23-27 of your sex, race, state
16
Within Cohort Decompositions Male-female difference in the probability of
enrollment can be decomposed into 2 parts:
Unexplained (i.e. the coefficient on male)
Explained by differences in means:
fcmcccfcmc XXPP ˆˆ
17
Decomposition of Enrollment of 20-year-olds born from 1953 to 1957
male-female coefficient coefficientmale female difference (std error) *difference
Difference in Enrollment Rate 0.266 0.228 0.038Unexplained(i.e. male dummy) 1.000 0.000 1.000 -0.019 -0.019Explained by (0.030) never married 0.804 0.593 0.211 0.268 0.056
(0.012) spouse gone 0.013 0.047 -0.034 0.032 -0.001
(0.016) black 0.115 0.133 -0.017 -0.100 0.002
(0.039) white 0.868 0.858 0.010 -0.014 0.000
(0.038) south 0.313 0.337 -0.025 0.009 0.000
(0.019) veteran 0.041 0.000 0.041 -0.145 -0.006
(0.020) ln(state tuition) 7.536 7.525 0.010 -0.033 0.000
(0.028) ln(state UR) 1.852 1.848 0.005 -0.029 0.000
(0.018) ln(weekly earnings) {25% for college grad} 6.380 5.710 0.670 0.058 0.039
(0.019) ln(weekly earnings) {75% for HS grad} 6.739 6.105 0.635 -0.050 -0.031
(0.046) high school graduate 0.821 0.826 -0.004 0.213 -0.001
(0.012) intercept 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.188 0.000
(0.309)Total Explained 0.056 Percentage Explained 149%
means
18
Decomposition of Enrollment of 20-year-olds born from 1973 to 1977
male-female coefficient coefficientmale female difference (std error) *difference
Difference in Enrollment Rate 0.327 0.344 -0.017Unexplained (i.e. male dummy) 1.000 0.000 1.000 -0.023 -0.023Explained by (0.023) never married 0.928 0.819 0.109 0.268 0.029
(0.018) spouse gone 0.012 0.030 -0.018 0.055 -0.001
(0.025) black 0.138 0.156 -0.018 -0.136 0.002
(0.030) white 0.808 0.795 0.014 -0.021 0.000
(0.029) south 0.367 0.349 0.018 -0.040 -0.001
(0.018) veteran 0.012 0.003 0.009 -0.141 -0.001
(0.065) ln(state tuition) 8.021 8.024 -0.003 -0.016 0.000
(0.035) ln(state UR) 1.730 1.728 0.001 -0.112 0.000
(0.035) ln(weekly earnings) {25% for college grad} 6.314 5.917 0.397 0.002 0.001
(0.031) ln(weekly earnings) {75% for HS grad} 6.603 6.185 0.418 -0.035 -0.014
(0.047) high school graduate 0.834 0.859 -0.025 0.346 -0.009
(0.017) intercept 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.398 0.000
(0.481)Total Explained 0.006 Percentage Explained -36%
means
19
Within Cohort Decomposition Highlights Within cohort, the male dummy is never
significantly different from zero Higher marriage rates for females are
important, especially for the early cohorts Higher earnings for male high school
graduates are important, especially for the later cohorts when it is not offset by the effect of higher earnings for male college graduates
20
Across Cohort Decompositions The change in the male-female difference
in the probability of enrollment can also be decomposed into the unexplained part and the part explained by the change in the differences in means:
fcmctfctmctc XXXX ̂
21
Across-Cohort Decompositionmale-female male-female later - early difference difference chort coefficents coefficient
in means for in means for change in for *change inearly cohort late cohort differences late cohort differences
Change in Difference in Enrollment Rate 0.038 -0.017 0.055 Explained by never married 0.211 0.109 0.101 0.268 0.027 spouse gone -0.034 -0.018 -0.016 0.055 -0.001 black -0.017 -0.018 0.001 -0.136 0.000 white 0.010 0.014 -0.004 -0.021 0.000 south -0.025 0.018 -0.043 -0.040 0.002 veteran 0.041 0.009 0.032 -0.141 -0.005 ln(state tuition) 0.010 -0.003 0.014 -0.016 0.000 ln(state UR) 0.005 0.001 0.003 -0.112 0.000 ln(weekly earnings) {25% for college grad} 0.670 0.397 0.273 0.002 0.001 ln(weekly earnings) {75% for HS grad} 0.635 0.418 0.217 -0.035 -0.007 high school graduate -0.004 -0.025 0.021 0.346 0.007Total Explained 0.023 Percent Explained 42%
22
Across-Cohort Decomposition Highlights INCREASES IN RELATIVE FEMALE ENROLLMENT (AS
ACTUALLY OBSERVED) ARE IMPLIED BY Narrowing of the male-female marriage gap
Most important contributor to observed change Increase of the female advantage in HS graduation
Contributes slightly (effect ¼ size of marriage gap)
INCREASES IN RELATIVE MALE ENROLLMENT (OPPOSITE OF OBSERVED) ARE IMPLIED BY Narrowing of male-female HS graduate wage gap
Exactly offsets HS grad effect Decrease in male advantage in veteran status
Very small effect
23
Summary The biggest drop in the male fraction of
college students is likely due to one-time events - End of the Vietnam War
End of draft deferments reduces over-consumption of college by males
Fewer veterans using GI Bill tuition benefits Increased opportunities for women
Enrollment by earlier cohorts at older ages Higher age at first marriage Lower HS drop-out rates