Sigal Alon - Field of Study Choices & Mobility Trajectories

Field of Study Choices & Mobility Trajectories Sigal Alon Tel-Aviv University

Conference on Social Mobility, June 14-15, 2017

The Stratifying Role of FOS • FOS: the most important determinant of future earnings

• Arcidiacono 2004; Roksa and Levey 2010; Altonji, Blom and Meghir 2012; Kim, Tamborini, and Sakamoto 2015

• FOS choices:

• Determinants of intra- and intergenerational mobility • One of the factors perpetuating inequality

Key Questions • Segregation in choices

• Are there systematic differences between individuals’ choices?

• Collective logic

• Are there systematic differences in the operation of specific decisionmaking rules?

• Mobility Trajectories

• What are the academic and economic implications of systematic differences decision making?

Papers • Alon, Sigal. 2015. “Field of Study Variation throughout the College Pipeline and its Effect on the Earnings Gap: Differences between Ethnic and Immigrant Groups in Israel.” Social Science Research 52 465–478 • Alon, Sigal, and Thomas A. DiPrete. 2015. “Gender Differences in the Formation of a Field Study Choice Set.” Sociological Science 2: 50-81.

• Alon, Sigal. (in progress). “The Price of Ambition: The Academic Matching of Field of Study Choices and Ethnic Gaps in Admission Rate.”

Methodological Issues • Data

• Data on revealed choices

• Estimation • Big data

• Classification

• Classify and quantify choices

Alon, Sigal. 2015. “Field of Study Variation throughout the College Pipeline and its Effect on the Earnings Gap: Differences between Ethnic and Immigrant Groups in Israel.” Social Science Research 52 465–478

• Segregation in choices

• Ethnic variation in FOS expected salary (diff in academic score)

• Collective logic

• Differences in the match b/w economic aspirations-academic requirement of the FOS

• Mobility Trajectories

• Ethnic-based economic inequality among workers with a bachelor’s degree

Ethnic gaps among applicants in field of study average monthly salary (in NIS), 1999-2002, Males, (most lucrative major in choice set) Acad score (prcntile)

Major's expected salary NIS

ADM %

adjusted unadjusted (acad score)

Veteran “Ashkenazi”

60.8

13,175

100%

100%

0.74

Veteran “Mizrachi”

53.1

13,076

99%

104%

0.69

Immigrants from FSU

50.3

13,982

106%

118%

0.57

Immigrants - others

52.4

12,206

93%

97%

0.68

Alon (2015)

Table 4: Conditional logit model: the effect of major's characteristics on major choice, 1999-2002 applicants VARIABLES (Standardized)

Males (1)

Females (2)

Major's characteristics (FOS by institution)

Major's expected salary (M/F)

0.563*** (0.00687)

0.187*** (0.00666)

The monthly salary of graduates during their first years in the labor market

Major's academic rigor

0.00296 (0.00720)

-0.178*** (0.00575)

Average standardized composite score among admits

Major's percent females

-0.233*** (0.00832)

0.0244*** (0.00709)

Percent of females among enrolled students

Major's graduation rate

0.0251** (0.00771)

0.231*** (0.00640)

Percent of enrolled students that graduate

Observations (person-major)

1,380,825

1,967,283

Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.001, ** p<0.01, * p<0.05

Alon (2015)

Alon, Sigal, and Thomas A. DiPrete. 2015. “Gender Differences in the Formation of a Field Study Choice Set.” Sociological Science 2: 50-81.

• Segregation in choices

• Gender variation in FOS choice set (no diff in academic score)

• Collective logic

• Gender gap in utility weights • Different utility weights by rank

• Mobility Trajectories

• Sex segregation in FOS choice, degree, occupation, a wage gap

0

.02

.04

.06

Figure 1. Distribution of Academic Scores, by Gender, TECH

0

20

40

60

80

x Women

Alon and DiPrete (2015)

Men

100

Figure 3: The level of horizontal sex segregation, Index of dissimilarity by choice, TECH D: index of dissimilarity (Duncan and Duncan 1955) 55 50 .434

45 40 .376

35 30 25 20

1999

Alon and DiPrete (2015)

2000

2001

2002

2003

choice1

2004

2005

choice2

2006

2007

2008

Figure 2: The distribution of first choice majors, by gender, TECH applicants (1998-2008) 25

23

20

17 15

13

%

10

10

7

12

9

5

3

0

Alon and DiPrete (2015)

men

women

Figure 5. Multinomial Preferences Model: Effects of Difficulty of Being Accepted on First Choice and Second Choice, TECH First choice, FE

Second choice, FE 0

0.5 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

3

4

5

6

7

-1

-1

-1.5

-1.5

Logit coefficient

Logit coefficient

2

-0.5

10

-0.5

-2 -2.5

-2 -2.5 -3

-3

-3.5

-3.5 -4

-4

-4.5

-4.5

Female-1 Alon and DiPrete (2015)

1

Male-1

The Choice Model The impact of the individual-major match on the probability of applying to major j

Female-2

Male-2

8

9

10

FOS choices & Mobility Trajectories • Studying the college major choice set

• Differences b/w groups in decision making process • The role played by the individual’s choices in the fanning out of life trajectories • The roots of gender, racial/ethnic, and class-based inequality • The way to reduce economic inequality and enhance socioeconomic mobility