1 / 27

Higher education returns and effects of ability composition 1. Motivation

Higher education returns and effects of ability composition 1. Motivation Increased higher education participation is likely to have various impacts on returns to degrees

leroy-mcdonald
Download Presentation

Higher education returns and effects of ability composition 1. Motivation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Higher education returns and effects of ability composition • 1. Motivation • Increased higher education participation is likely to have various impacts on returns to degrees • One channel – through implied changes in composition of different educational groups – has received relatively little attention • Compositional changes of interest include by family class background and by ‘ability’ • In the current work, we are interested in ability composition Lancaster

  2. 2. Aims • We will focus on: • The college wage premium • Differences in the premium across different groups • - gender • - ability • Why gender? Because graduate expansion has been differential by gender. • Why by ability? Because it’s potentially important but often ignored. Lancaster

  3. 3. Context HE API in UK shows rapid expansion after mid-1980s, with growth especially dramatic for women. See Figure 1. Lancaster

  4. Lancaster

  5. Lancaster

  6. Lancaster

  7. Why did the HE API rise? • Demand-side factors: • derived demand (SBTC) • GCSE pass rates • Supply-side factors: • Increase in places • - finance following student • - end of binary divide • Loans system • W-Z: from mid-80s to mid-90s, SS dominated DD factors • => r (specifically, Pg) predicted to fall, cet. par. r S=MC D2 D1 s S1 r S2 D=MB s Lancaster

  8. 5. Heterogeneity in ability The simple model of the previous figures assumes workers are homogeneous and hence abstracts from possibility of compositional changes: r S1=MC1 DH DL sL sH s Lancaster

  9. A fall in costs can produce a change in the ability composition: (similarly, a change in marginal benefits could produce a change in family background composition) r S1=MC1 S2=MC2 DH DL s sL=sH Lancaster

  10. At the individual level, the issue of the relationship between ability and educational investments when individuals are heterogeneous is well-known and is associated with the problem of ability bias in estimates of returns to education. At the macro (cohort) level, cohort changes (eg in participation) can impact on estimates of returns through changes in the extent of ability bias across cohorts. Lancaster

  11. Assume: Within a cohort: Across cohorts: . . . Lancaster

  12. Across cohorts: Lancaster

  13. What happens if HE API grows? There is no change in . But this is a special result under the uniform distribution. Blackburn and Neumark show that under a triangular distribution, falls. Lancaster

  14. The implication is that graduate expansion over cohorts produces a compositional change of a type that leads to a reduction in ability bias (or a lower value to the signal of a degree), ceteris paribus, and hence a lower estimate of the college wage premium. The US literature on this was not developed further as the Blackburn-Neumark analysis was attempting to explain an increase in the college wage premium at a time of higher college participation. Rosenbaum (2003) finds evidence supporting the view that compositional changes can explain longer term patterns in the college wage premium in the US. (See INST: p.11) Lancaster

  15. 6. Evidence on the UK college wage premium over time • Harkness-Machin (1999) • pg was rising in the 80s and constant in the 90s • Likely explanation: SBTC in 80s raised rs and ra; offset in 90s by graduate expansion • Walker-Zhu (2008) • (LFS) Focus on birth cohorts of 66-68 vs 75-77 (see Figure 1a, p. 5): API more than doubled. • Result: pg constant for men (15%) and • pg rising for women (40% -> 47%) • Conclusion: ra must have been rising to offset what must have been falling rs (and compositional changes) Lancaster

  16. What can we learn from the birth cohort studies in Britain? • HE API HE API pg (%) • +4 cohorts1 Men Women • NCDS 13% (1977) 14% 12-18 34-38 • 1958 • Birth cohort • NCS70 18% (1989) 2 30% ? ? • 1970 • Birth cohort • 1Eg, entering HE in 1993, graduating in 1996, 4yrs experience • by 2000 when £ observed of 1970 birth cohort. • 2Conceals extent of growth in female participation in HE. Lancaster

  17. Given the much greater expansion in the HE API of women relative to men, we might expect the consequently greater compositional change for women to lead to a relative fall in the college wage premium of women. On (i), if L-mkts are integrated (not segmented by gender), then gender composition changes should not affect rs differentially by gender. There is some evidence that SBTC has favoured women over men. On (ii), again there is evidence of shift in demand to skills associated with female employment. So evidence of relative fall in college premium for women would indicate importance of role for (iii). Lancaster

  18. Data: BCS70. The dependent variable is the natural logarithm of gross hourly wages, age 30. Wage premia are relative to individuals with 2 or more A-levels. The wage equation also includes a wide set of explanatory variables: see paper. λ are the generalized residuals computed from the ordered probit model for the highest educational qualification achieved. The CFA model is identified by parents' education that is included only in the education equation. The F-test refers to the exclusion of parents' education from the controls in the wage equation (2) in the CFA model only identified by functional form. Lancaster

  19. Lancaster

  20. HE API HE API pg (%) +4 cohorts1 Men Women NCDS 13% (1977) 14% 12-18 34-38 1958 Birth cohort NCS70 18% (1989) 2 30% 15 18 1970 Birth cohort Across the 2 cohorts, pg for men has been remarkably constant while pg for women has fallen dramatically, to be similar to that for men. Supports hypothesis that compositional changes important. Lancaster

  21. 7. Degree class signals We now consider the premium associated with the award of a distinction to the most able graduates. Compared to the case concerning the premium for a degree, we expect the premium for a distinction to reflect a relatively strong signalling element. (Note contrast between UK and US: see Arcidiancono et al., 2008.) But HKT interpretation works too. The question we address is: how is da/ds likely to change following an increase in the HE API? Lancaster

  22. Theory As HE API increases, da/ds rises and this causes the estimated premium for a distinction to rise, cet. par.. (nb: impact reduced by d↑) Is this consistent with empirical evidence? Lancaster

  23. USR data Ireland, Naylor, Smith, Telhaj (2009) • 1985 – 1993 graduating cohorts • (+ HESA data for1998 leavers) • (+ GCS data for 1985 and 1990 cohorts) • Administrative data on full graduate populations • Personal characteristics • Academic background • Family background • University/course information • First Destination Survey (EL-SD) • Problem with individual earnings (balloon surface) • Average occupational earnings (averaged over all years) Lancaster

  24. USR data, summary statistics for those in employment based on the 1993 cohort (continued) Variable Mean Mean Degree Class Males Females First (I) 0.10 0.07 Upper Second (II.1) 0.45 0.55 Lower Second (II.2) 0.33 0.32 Third (III) 0.07 0.03 Sample size (n) 19476 19978 Lancaster

  25. Average occupational earnings by subject field and degree class for the 1993 cohort   MALES FEMALES   Mean n Mean n 450.28 19476 333.10 19978 Degree Class I 480.14 1909 351.31 1309 II.1 465.25 8791 338.44 10982 II.2 432.62 6471 322.58 6381 III 408.41 1344 319.06 642 Lancaster

  26. Selected Results of occupational earnings equation for the 1993 cohort     MALES FEMALES Variable Coeff  Coeff  Degree class I 0.038*** 0.037*** II.1 (default) II.2 -0.054*** -0.042*** III -0.094*** -0.053*** Other -0.080*** -0.079*** Note: Premium for a good degree is 6.0%. Similar to estimate of 6.4% for BCS70 students graduating at about same time. From 1990 GCS data, premium for a good degree is 5.0% Lancaster

  27. Degree class coefficient estimates for the 1985-1993 and 1998 cohorts • 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1998 • Males • I 0.003 0.006 -0.007 -0.006 0.001 0.027 0.027 0.042 0.038 0.046 • II.1 (default) • Females • I 0.012 0.012 0.018 0.028 0.026 0.033 0.025 0.053 0.037 0.067 • II.1 (default) • Why is this an interesting time period? • HE API 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.32 • Correlation between API and Premia (1985 – 1993 cohorts): • First, Males, = 0.81; (ii) First, Females, = 0.79; • (iii) Overall Span (1st to 3rd), Males, = 0.86; (iv) Overall Span, Females, = 0.64. • Over this time period, there is no strong evidence of substantial increases in rsor ra: W-Z show degree returns constant for both men and women at least prior to 1995 graduates.    Lancaster

More Related