Showing posts with label Jurajda. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jurajda. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 3, 2016

Alphabetical order effects in school admissions. By Daniel Münich and Štěpán Jurajda in Research Papers in Education

If school admission committees use alphabetically sorted lists of applicants in their evaluations, one’s position in the alphabet according to last name initial may be important in determining access to selective schools. Jurajda and Münich (2010) ‘Admission to Selective Schools, Alphabetically. Economics of Education Review, 29 (6): 1100–1109’ provide evidence consistent with this hypothesis based on graduation exams taken in grade 13 in the Czech Republic: ‘Z’ students in selective schools had higher exam scores than ‘A’ students. In this paper, we use the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study & Progress in International Reading Literacy Study test scores of 4th graders and the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) test scores of 8th and 9th graders in the Czech Republic to provide evidence on how the alphabetical sorting outcome uncovered in Jurajda and Münich (2010) ‘Admission to Selective Schools, Alphabetically. Economics of Education Review, 29 (6): 1100–1109’ arises during early tracking into selective schools. Using the PISA data, we also provide corresponding evidence for Denmark, where sorting into selective schools happens in higher grades.


Gender composition of college graduates by field of study and early fertility. By Alena Bičáková and Štěpán Jurajda in Rev Econ Household


The gender composition of peer groups has been shown to affect marriage market outcomes, but there is no evidence on whether the share of women on college graduates across fields of study affects graduates’ fertility, even though the college field-of-study peer group is a natural source of potential mating partners. We use variation in gender shares by fields of study implied by the recent expansion of college education in 19 European countries, and a difference-in-differences research design, to show that the share of women in study peer groups does not drive early fertility. When there are few available potential partners in one’s field of study, endogamous fertility by college graduates from the same field of study is lower, as expected, but non-endogamous fertility compensates for this effect for both genders. This compensation, however, comes at the cost of increasing the probability of parenting with a less-than-college educated spouse.