MESA Finnie Mueller PDF

TheEffectsofFamily
Income,Parental
EducationandOther
BackgroundFactorson
AccesstoPost
SecondaryEducation
inCanada
RossFinnie
RichardMueller
MESA20082
MESAMEASURINGTHEEFFECTIVENESSOFSTUDENTAID
CanadianEducationProject|QueensUniversitySchoolofPolicyStudies|CanadaMillenniumScholarshipFoundation
EducationalPolicyInstitute|HigherEducationStrategyAssociates
Toronto,Ontario,CanadaJune2008 www.mesaproject.org
EffectsofUniversityCharacteristicsandAcademicRegulationsonStudentPersistence,DegreeCompletion,andTimeto
DegreeCompletion
TheMESAProject Thefindings andconclusions expressedin

The Measuring the Effectiveness of Stu this paper are those of the authors anddo
dent Aid Project, or the MESA Project, is a notnecessarilyrepresentthoseoftheMESA
fouryearresearcheffort beingconductedby Projectoritspartners.
the Canadian Education Project and the
School for Policy Studies at Queen'sUniver
sity on behalf of the Canada Millennium ThePartners
ScholarshipFoundation.Ithas beendesigned TheEducationPolicyInstituteisaninter
toanswerthefollowingfourquestions: national, nonprofit think tank dedicated to
the study of educational opportunity. Our
After graduating from highschool, teen missionis toprovidehighlevel researchand
agers coming from lowincome back analysisto support policymakers andpracti
grounds face a choice astoattendcollege tionersandexpand educational opportunity
or university, or not. For thosewho did to all students. EPI handles overall project
attend, how do they compare to those managementandcoordination,dataprivacy
whodidnot? & cleaning, and integration of the final re
Does providing more funding in a stu s u l t s a t t h e e n d o f t h e p r o j e c t .
dentsfirstfewyears offurthereducation www.educationalpolicy.org
attract more lowincome students to
postsecondaryeducation? TheCanadian Education Projectprovides
Does providing more funding in a stu research andevaluation expertisein experi
dentsfirstfewyears offurthereducation mental, quantitative, qualitative and mixed
make it more likely for lowincome stu methodsresearchapproaches.Thecompany
dentstostayinandgraduate? has experienceworkingwithabroadrange of
Arelowincomestudents differentacross stakeholders including governments (at the
Canada? federalandprovinciallevels),secondary and
This paper is part of aseries ofresearch postsecondary educational institutions, ele
papers solicited from some of the leading mentary and secondary school boards, stu
Canadianresearchersinthefieldofpostsec d e n t g r o u p s , n o n p r o f i t a n d n o n
ondary education; the researchers were governmental organizations andother stake
asked to write about issues of access and holders in the education and public policy
persistence in postsecondary education in arena in Canada and internationally. While
Canada. The requirements for the papers muchofourworktodate dealswithstudents
werethattheresearchersuse one ofseveral andyouthatthepostsecondarylevel,we are
currentlyexistingStatistics Canadadatabases increasingly engaginginresearchat the ele
or another source ofCanadiandata.Eachof mentaryandsecondarylevels as well aslook
thepaperscommissionedduringthisproject ingatstudentmobilitythroughlifelonglearn
is available for downloading from the MESA ing and transitions between K12 and post
Projectwebsiteatwww.mesaproject.org. secondaryeducation.www.canedproject.ca
iiEffectsofUniversityCharacteristicsandAcademicRegulationsonStudentPersistence,DegreeCompletion,andTime
toDegreeCompletion
TheSchool of Policy Studies at Queen's society; and to build a national alliance of

University(www.queensu.ca/sps)is a leading organizations and individuals around a
centreforadvancededucation, research,de sharedpostsecondary agenda. TheFounda
bateand interactionwiththenonacademic tionis fundingtheMESAProjectoverall, and
world in the fields of public administration has negotiatedaccess toits studentadminis
andindustrial relations.Continuingthelong trative lists witheachoftheprovincesonthe
standing commitment of Queen's University project'sbehalf.
toexcellenceintheseareas,theyare training
the next generation of leaders for life in a www.millenniumscholarships.ca
global age.Their master's programs linkthe
ory with practice to provide students with
fundamental knowledge of the economic,
political, social and technological changes
thatare transformingthewaywe liveandthe
way we work. Students enhancetheir com
municationandresearchskills,andgainnew
skills in management, policy analysis, eco
nomics and quantitative methods. Their
graduatesare well preparedtocontributeto
policymaking,humanresourcemanagement
andindustrial relations ina variety ofpublic,
private and nonprofit organizations. The
School for Policy Studies manages the Re
searchReviewCommittee for theMESA Pro
ject, which is responsible for funding con
tributory researchprojects that highlight im
portantpolicyareasofinterest.
The Canada Millennium Scholarship

Foundationisa private, independent organi
zation created by an act of Parliament in
1998. It encourages Canadian students to
strive for excellence and pursue their post
secondary studies. The Foundation distrib
utes$325millionintheformofbursariesand
scholarships each year throughout Canada.
Its objectivesaretoimproveaccess topost
secondaryeducationforallCanadians,espe
cially those facing economic or social barri
ers; to encourage a high level of student
achievement and engagement in Canadian
DegreeCompletion
Abstract
This paper exploitsthe unprecedentedrich information avail
able intheCanadianYouthinTransitionSurvey,SampleA(YITS
A) to investigate issues related to access to postsecondary
education(PSE).Thequestionswe askarebasicallytwofold:i)
Whatare thevariousinfluencesonaccess toPSEofanindivid
uals background, includingmoretraditional measures suchas
familyincome andparental education, as wellas a broaderset
of measures suchas highschool grades, social/academic en
gagement, and other cognitive and behavioural influences?
andii) Howdoesincludingsuchamoreextensiveset ofvari
ables thanhas been possiblein previousstudieschange the
estimatedeffects ofthemoreconventionallymeasuredfamily/
parental influences(family incomeandparental education)on
access toPSE,andthus indicatehowmuchofthelatter influ
encesoperatethrough(or otherwiseproxy)theeffects ofthe
broader set ofvariables, thereby isolating the direct as op
posedtoindirectinfluence ofthesetraditional measures on
access?Utilizingmultinomial logitmodels tocapture the choice
oflevel ofPSE(i.e., collegeversus university)we findthat pa
rental income is positively related to university attendance,
whilehaving only aminor effect oncollege, but thiseffect is
greatly diminished once parental education is includedinthe
estimation. Similarly, theimportance of parental educationto
university attendance is somewhat diminished once certain
measuresofhighschoolgrades,academicengagement,anda
standardisedreadingtestscoreareincludedalthough,inter
estingly,theseadditional variables have little furtheraffect on
thefamily incomeinfluences.Theseresults thussupportother
recentworkwhichpointstotheimportanceofaddressingear
lier cognitiveandbehaviouralinfluences, andfamily culture
moregenerallyas capturedbyparental education,ineffecting
changein theratesand patternsof participationin PSE al
thoughfamily income does remain a significant independent
factor,albeitofsignificantlyreducedinfluence.
Ross Finnie is a professor at the University of Ottawa

(rfinnie@uottawa.ca)
RichardE.Muelleris aprofessoratthe UniversityofLethbridge
(richard.mueller@statcan.gc.ca)
DegreeCompletion
TableofContents
Introduction................................................................................................................ 1
TheLiterature.............................................................................................................. 3
Methodology.............................................................................................................. 4
TheData...................................................................................................................... 6
Results......................................................................................................................... 8
TheBaselineModels............................................................................................ 8
AddingHighSchoolGradestotheModel............................................................ 9
AddingtheScaleVariables................................................................................. 11
OverviewoftheFindings................................................................................... 14
ConclusionsandPolicyImplications.......................................................................... 15
References................................................................................................................ 18
TablesandFigures..................................................................................................... 20
Pleaseciteas:
Finnie,Ross,andMueller,RichardE.(2008).TheEffectsofFam
ilyIncome,ParentalEducationandOtherBackgroundFactors
on Access to PostSecondary Education in Canada: Evidence
from the YITS. Toronto, ON: Canadian Education Project.
(www.mesaproject.org/research.php)
1EffectsofUniversityCharacteristicsandAcademicRegulationsonStudent Persistence,DegreeCompletion,andTime
toDegreeCompletion
Introduction earlier in life if the longterm goalis to in

There now exists a substantial body of creasePSEparticipation.
research on the importance of family back
ground influences, tuition levels, and other This is not to imply that financial re
relatedvariablesonaccess topostsecondary sources are not important, only that they
education (PSE) in Canada as for other maybecorrelatedwithothervariableswhich
countries. For economists, this emphasison are alsosignificant determinants ofPSE par
financial factors makes perfect sense. The ticipation, andthus there may have been a
pricemechanismis consideredto beimpor misguided assignment of the influence of
tant in any investment decision which is thesefinancialvariables.Forpolicypurposes,
howthechoice ofschoolinglevelis typically identifyingthemost importantdeterminants
viewed. Andtheavailability ofthefunds re of access to PSE is obviously important for
quiredtomake the investmentinthis con choosingthemosteffective policy levers for
textoftenproxiedbyorotherwiserelatedto changing access rates (and the underlying
familyincome levelis anequallycritical fac opportunities whichdrivethoserates),espe
tor,especiallyina contextwherecapitalmar cially ifoverall PSE budgetsaremore or less
kets may limit access to financing because fixedandspendingonone access lever(e.g.,
prospective students are often unable to loans, grants, or loser tuition) means less
providesufficientcollateraltobacktheirbor spending on another (e.g., earlier interven
rowing (see for example, Barr, 1993, Chap tions).
man,1997).
Furthermore, if student loans andgrants
Recent scholarly research inthe area of and/or decreased tuitionare not having the
access to PSE (e.g., Cunha, et al., 2006, desiredeffect onaccess andretention, than
Heckman, 2007) has, however, shifted the theseresourcesmaysimplyamounttorent
emphasistononfinancial factorsas a newer accumulating to thosewhose PSE decisions
generation of empirical work has indicated are not sensitivetothesefinancial variables
thatfinancialresources arebutoneofmany and would have been attending anyway.
importantdeterminants ofPSE participation. Governmentswouldperhaps likely dobetter
This lineofresearchcontends that itislong at targeting their resources to, say, better
termfactors,suchas familybackground,over preparingstudents forgainingadmissioninto
shorttermfactors,suchascreditconstraints, PSE institutions or improving individuals
which are of greatest importance in deter educationalsuccessor work habitsat lower
mining access to PSE. Since many of these levels, ultimately enhancing the probability
factorsarecorrelatedwithfamily income in ofPSEparticipation.
theshorttermperiodwhenPSEdecisionsare
made,itisoftenerroneously statedthatthis Carneiro andHeckman (2002) succinctly
shorttermcreditconstraintis whatprohibits summarize the argument, noting that chil
lowincome individuals from attending PSE. drenwhoseparents havehigherincomehave
Theimplicationofthis workispowerful:pol better access to quality schools, and these
icyshouldbe moredirectedtowards students sameparentsshapethetastesandexpecta
MESAMeasuringtheEffectivenessofStudentAid2
tionsoftheir children. They are alsoableto teringeithercollegeoruniversity.

better nurture theintellect of their children
by assistinganddirecting their studies.They The contribution of thispaper is, there
also note that cognitiveability at least as fore,toincludea muchricherseriesofback
measured by IQ on standardized tests is groundvariablesintotheanalysis,thus allow
formed by theageof14 and that the influ ingus toanalysetheeffects ofboththe more
encesoffamilyfactorsaccumulatefrombirth traditionally measured determinants of ac
sothatscholasticabilityisdeterminedby the cess to PSE (e.g., family income) as wellas
endofhighschool.Again, theimplicationof the various sets of other background vari
theseargumentsisthatpolicies aimedatin ables that also may be of importance. It is
fluencingyoungpeopleat thetimeoftransi this latter groupoffactorsthatmaybe corre
tionfromhighschool toPSE couldbeinap lated with financial variables, and yet may
propriately targeted.Rather,any attemptsat themselves be important correlates of PSE
interventionshouldlikelybeconductedmuch participation amongst young people. These
earlier whenthecognitive maturityofyoung include various measures of high school
peopleisbeingdeveloped. grades, a range of scale variables which
captureacademicandsocial engagementand
With the exception of Carneiro and related psychologicalsociological attributes,
Heckman (2002),andahandfulofother re anda standardizedinternationalreadingtest
centstudiesofthis generationwhichaddress score. Weexpectthattheinclusionofthese
theimportance of family backgroundonac variables will attenuate the effects of tradi
cess to PSE (e.g., Cameron and Heckman, tional variables (such as parental education
1998; ErmischandFrancesconi,2001; Keane and income). We anticipatethat somevari
andWolpin,2001; Cunha,etal.,2006;Heck ables such as high school grades and stan
man, 2007), relatively little data has been dardizedreadingtestresults will haveaposi
broughttobearonthis topic,andwebelieve tiveandindependentinfluenceonPSEatten
ourdatatohavecertainstrengths thatcanbe dance, but we hold fewer a priori expecta
foundinnoprevious studies,these beingthe tionsaboutthesigns andrelativeimportance
particularly richset of backgroundvariables ofmanyofthe othervariables,sincetherela
that canbeaddedtothemodels. This ises tionships betweenthese variables are likely
pecially trueintheCanadiancontext, andto complexandhaveyettobesufficientlystud
the best of our knowledge, ours is the first iedintheliterature.Estimatingtheeffectsof
study usingCanadiandatawhichattempts to thesevariables andmeasuringthechanges in
estimatethe importanceof a broader set of the estimated effects of the more typical
family andstudentbackgroundinfluences on backgroundvariableswhenthebroader sets
access toPSEinthisfashion.1Inparticular,we are introduced,arethemainfocus ofthepa
focusonthe backgroundof young adults at per.
the time when they are 15years old to as
sessthe importanceof thesefactorsonen
1Frenette(2007)alsoexploitsthesedata,butaddressadifferentquestion:whatfactorsexplainthedifferenceinPSEparticipationrates
ofindividualsfromdifferentfamilyincomequartiles?HeaddressesthisbyusingastandardOaxacadecompositionapproach.
toDegreeCompletion
Utilizingmultinomiallogitmodels tocap Thepaperis organizedas follows:thefol

turetheparticular levelofPSE inwhich the lowingsectioncontains a reviewoftheperti
individual participates (i.e., college versus nent literature; Section III discusses the
university)generateresultsthataregenerally methodology employed; the data are dis
consistentwithwhatis foundintheexisting cussed in Section IV; the results of the de
literatureinterms ofthesignsof the coeffi scriptive and multivariate analysis are the
cients andthe overall size of effects.Inpar topic of Section V; and the final section
ticular,wefindthat parentalincomeis posi summarizesthe major findings andexplores
tively related to university attendance, but some of the policy implications of thefind
has amuchsmaller effect on college atten ings.
dance, sinceit makes it more likely that an
individual will participateinPSE, whichgen
eratesapositive effect, but alsomorelikely TheLiterature
that university will be the level of choice, As noted above, agood share of the lit
whichhas anegativeinfluence.Thestrength erature on access to PSE amongst young
of the incomeeffect is, however, greatly di people has addressedtheimpacts oftuition
minishedonceparentaleducationis included levels andfamily background(thetwooften
in the estimation, suggesting that when in interacted).
come is included without education it is
largely capturing the effect of the latter, CarneiroandHeckman(2002)reviewthe
whichis the dominanteffect. Inlikefashion, USliteratureandaddnewevidencesupport
theimportance ofparental education(espe ing the paramount importanceof longterm
cially onuniversity attendance)isdiminished factors, such as family background, over
tosomedegreealthoughitremainsstrong shorttermfactors,suchascreditconstraints.
once certain measures of high school Since many ofthese background factorsare
grades, academic engagement, and stan correlated with family income in the short
dardized reading test scores (i.e., PISA re termperiodwhenPSEdecisionsaremade,it
sults) areincluded. Interestingly, theseaddi is oftenerroneouslystatedthatthisindicator
tionalvariables donotfurtherreducethe es of shortterm credit constraint is what pro
timated importance of family income, sug hibitslowincomeindividualsfromattending
gesting that an independent income effect PSE.
remainsafter all thesefactorsare takeninto
accountevenifit isnotnearly as greatas Studies by CameronandHeckman(1998,
might bethought from estimates generated 2001),Keane andWolpin(2001),andCunha,
whenaless completesetofexplanatoryvari etal.(2006),toname buta few,alsosupport
ables is included. These results therefore this conclusion. Similarly, Murray (2002)
support other recent work which points to notes that successful (in terms of income)
the importance of addressing earlier cogni parentstendtohave successfulchildren.The
tive and behavioural influences rather than implication of this research is that PSE par
current income in effecting change in the ticipation is largely determined long before
ratesandpatternsofparticipationinPSE. theactual point of entry intohigher educa
tionandthat relaxingshorttermcredit con (2005)similarly findthatPSEattendancegap

straintshaveonly have aminimal effect on between high and lowincome families is
participation.Keane(2002:293),forexample, narrowedwhencollegesanduniversities are
commentingontheincomedivideincollege bothconsidered,butthatstudents fromlow
attendanceintheUSnotes thatthisinequal incomefamilyarelesslikelytoattendeither,
ityappearstobe drivenby unequalhuman especiallyuniversity.
capital accumulation prior to the college
going age. The policy implication of these Two recent studies (Frenette, 2005,
studies is that trying to relax shortterm fi 2007), have also cast doubt on the credit
nancial constraints in attending PSE will be constraint hypothesis. In the first study,
largelyineffective. Frenette uses the deregulation of profes
sional programtuitioninOntarioas a natural
This bodyofworkrepresentsthepointof experiment. He discoversthat it is students
departure for the current paper. We utilize frommiddleclass familieswhosawtheirpar
the extensive background information con ticipation in these programs decline the
tainedintheYITSA database toaddress ac most, not thosefromlowerincome families.
cess toPSEinCanada.Specifically,weaddto In the second study, using the same YITSA
the existing literature by including a more data weemploy, he shows that very littleof
comprehensive set of background variables theuniversityparticipationgapbetweenstu
whicharedeterminedbefore entry intoPSE dentsfromfamilies inthe firstandfourthin
to assess the impact of these variables on come quartiles can be explained by credit
access tocollegeanduniversity andhowin constraints. Rather it is differences in stan
troducing these additional variables affects dardized test scores and high school marks
estimates of the more conventional meas that explainthemajority (andalmost all) of
ures,suchasfamilyincome,aswellas paren thegap.Thecombinedresultsofthisbodyof
taleducation. workagainsuggests thatresources aimedat
relaxing credit constraints (e.g., loans and
This work also fits intoa specifically Ca even grants) may be misdirected and might
nadianliterature.The accumulatedevidence be better utilizedat improving student per
suggests that the demandfor PSE inCanada formance at(or before)thehighschoollevel
is price inelastic(Junor andUsher, 2004), al or providing better information to students
though tuition increases may have a larger andtheir familiesabout the costsandbene
impact onindividuals fromlowincomefami fitsofeducation.
lies(Coelli, 2005). Both Christophides, et al.
(2001)andCorak,etal.(2003)includeparen
tal incomein their models of PSE participa Methodology
tionandfindthat it isimportant for univer This research uses a relatively standard
sityattendance,butnotcollege,whiletuition empiricalmodelforestimatingaccesstoPSE,
generally had little general effect, but may whereaccess is takentobeafunctionofdif
have more impact on individuals from low ferent sets of influences, working from a
incomefamilies. Frenette (2005) and Drolet smallerset of regressors, includingtheprin
toDegreeCompletion
cipal family background variables conven subjects, such as math and English), and
tionallyincludedinsuchmodels,andbuilding otherrelatedindicators.
to a more comprehensive set of regressors
representing the other kinds of influences Anextsetofregressors,X3,includeother
measuredintheYITSAthus movingfroma kinds of influences that have been gaining
short regression to progressively longer increasing attention as perhaps constituting
regressions. some ofthemoreimportantdeterminantsof
access to PSE. These include measures of
Themodelmaybeexpressedasfollows: engagement and inclusion, such as how
connectedthestudentfelttohis or her high
Y=X11+X22+X33+ school, a students selfappraisal of confi
dence andcompetence,parental behaviours
where Y is the access measure of interest regarding monitoring and disciplining their
(participationincollegeoruniversity), theXi children,etc.
are vectors ofcovariates thatinfluenceY,the
i are the coefficients associated with each It should berecognised that theseaddi
setofX,andis theclassicalstochasticerror tional influences do not necessarily have a
term. natural, econometricallycorrect ordering
interms oftheirinclusion,partlybecause we
X1 comprises the mostconventionalfam do not yet understandtheseprocessesvery
ily background variables such as family in well.Furtherworkwill undoubtedlycontinue
come, parental education, family type, etc. our advances in this respect. What is most
whicharetypically takenintheliteratureto importanttothe currentanalysis,however,is
be the important indicators of the advan that:(i) they are all determined before the
tagesoffamily backgroundinterms ofgoing entryintoPSE(whichis whentheyhavebeen
ontoPSE.Thatis,individuals fromhigherin measured i.e., during the earlier prePSE
comefamilies or(especially)thosewithmore cyclesoftheYITSA), (ii)they canaffect ac
highly educated parents (it turns out) are cess toPSE,and(iii)theymightinturnbe re
morelikelytogoontoPSE,particularlyatthe latedtofamily background.Hence, including
university level. Thesesimpler/shorter mod themwillcomprise anexerciseinmovingto
els will capture thetotaleffects ofthese vari wards (i)identifyinga fullerset ofinfluences
ables on access, regardless of the path of of access toPSE,and(ii)seeinghow adding
those influences (i.e., direct or indirect),
whilepickinguptheinfluences ofotheromit
tedfactorswithwhichtheyarecorrelated.
X2 includes one element of the wider

range of variables available intheYITS. This
setiscomprisedofvarious(scholastic)abil
ity measures, such as theindividuals high
school grades(overall andincertainspecific
suchadditional measuresaffectsour under One potentialissueintheestimation of

standingofthedirect andindirecteffects of thesemodelsisthepotential endogeneity of
familybackgroundonaccesstoPSE. atleastsomeoftherighthandsidevariables.
For example, students whowanttoget into
Various particular specifications of this university will likely workharder to achieve
modelareestimated,all ofwhichusea mul thebetter grades in highschool required to
tinomiallogitsetuptodifferentiatebetween gainadmissiontothis levelofschooling(and
access tocollegeanduniversity.2 It is impor tohavemorechoiceamongthoseto which
tant here toexplainthedifferencebetween they areaccepted).Thus,highschoolgrades
thesetwokindsof PSEintheCanadiancon are not strictly exogenous tothe PSEpartici
text. University includes what is conven pationoutcome.Thereexistavarietyofways
tionallyreferredtoas collegeintheAmeri toovercome(althoughnotnecessarilyelimi
can context, and includes all types of pro nate) this endogeneity problem. But in this
grams that deliver bachelorsdegrees. Other paper wesimply takesuchmeasures at face
wise put, virtually all institutions in Canada value, whichis consistent with our goal of
that grant such degrees are referred to as estimating the empirical relationships in
universities, even if they only offer pro question and seeing how they change (or
grams at thebachelors level, andregardless not)asthemodelincludes richer sets ofre
of their size. The classic liberal arts college gressors. Adding themore complete sets of
thatis foundinthe U.S.wouldthus beauni explanatory variables may not eliminate the
versityinCanada. Incontrast,colleges,or bias causedby endogeneity, but itshouldat
whatare oftenreferredto morecompletely leastattenuatetheproblem.
as community colleges offer shorter, more
practical programs,usually lastingfroma few
monthstotwoyears (orevenlongerinsome TheData
cases) and in many cases include trade TheYouthinTransitionSurveySample A
schools. The resultingcredential is a college (or YITSA)initially interviewed15year olds,
diploma asopposedtothe degreesoffered their parents, andtheir highschool adminis
byuniversities. trators in2000.Twofollowupsurveysofthe
youngpeople(only)were conductedin2002
Ourmultinomial setupupthusallowsthe andthenagainin2004.Inthis latterwaveof
regressors in our models to have different thesurvey, theyoung people were 19years
effects on college and university participa of age, the point at which individuals have
tion, while allowing these processes to be made at least their initialchoicesabout en
related. teringPSE.
2Weareawarethattheuseofamultinomiallogitmodelrequirestheassumptionofindependenceofirrelevantalternative,anassump
tionthatisstronggiventhatthedecisiontogotocollegeoruniversityarenotlikelyindependent.Weestimatedanumberofthespecifi
cationsoutlinedbelowusingamultinomialprobitmodel(whichdoesnotrequirethisstrongassumption).Innoneofthecasesdidthe
resultschangemarkedlyfromthosepresentedbelowinTables2and3.
toDegreeCompletion
The dependent variables in our study classified as college students if included in

representingentry intoeither collegeor uni terms of their CEGEP attendance, and the
versity thus differentiate those who have differentiation of college and university
decided to enter PSE at this point in their boundstudents is fundamental toouranaly
lives versus allothers includingthosewho sis.Observations fromthe territories are also
havedecidednot toattendaswellasthose eliminatedduetosmallsamplesizes.
whomay golater. While it wouldalsobe in
teresting andinsomeways moreinterest PSEparticipationis definedinour analy
ing tolook at access whenindividuals are sis as the first program that a student en
older and would therefore have had more tered,ratherthanthehighestlevelattended.
timetoreturnto their studies after not en This isprincipallyowingtothefactthatmore
tering PSE directly from high school, other informationisavailableonthefirstprogram
work has found that the relationship be thanonsubsequent programs aswell asthe
tween participation in PSE andfamily back fact that we are concernedwiththespecific
ground (as well as most other influences) transitionfromhighschool toPSE inthis re
does notdifferverymuchwiththeageofthe search.This said, giventherelativeyouthof
individualsincludedinthe samples(at least our samples, for most studentsthelevel of
amongyoungpeoplegenerally).Ouranalysis thefirst program is the same as the level of
is inanyeventconstrainedbythedataavail thehighestprogramatleastsofar intheir
able, and we consider our estimates to at lives.(Withfuturewaves ofthe YITSdata,the
minimum provide an initial set of results dynamicsrelating tofirst versussubsequent
whichatleastbegintogetattheissues being programs could be addressed, including
addressed, perhaps to be returned to after switches from one level of PSE to another
thereleaseofthe2006surveyYITSAdata. (i.e.,betweencollegeanduniversity).
Whileour study is national inscope, the Since individuals who have studied out
exceptiontothisgeneral coverage is thatthe side of Canada might have quite different
samples excludethoseliving in Quebec. Be backgrounds and experiences, we eliminate
cause Quebechas a specialsystemofPSE themfromthe sample.For thesame reason,
Collge d'enseignement gnral et profes nonCanadian citizens and those with un
sionnel,orCEGEP as itis commonly known known immigration status are dropped. Fi
students in Quebec only attend secondary nally, we drop those individuals for which
education up totheequivalent of grade 11, therearemissingdata aswellas thosewho
andthenattendCEGEPtoeither prepare for are continuinginhighschool, sinceweobvi
university (two years of CEGEP) or to com
plete a technical program (usually two or
threeyearsofCEGEP).WedropQuebecfrom
our analysis since there is no way in these
data to disaggregate the two streams, and
this could potentially confound our analysis,
since universitybound students would be
ously donotobserveany potentialtransition rental education level is included, however,

intoPSEforthislattergroup.3 this figure drops to about six percentage
points. For females, the corresponding esti
The final sample contains 7,852 males mates are19.8 and10.3 percentage points.
and 8,211 females. At times, however, this For college access, there are no statistically
number is reduced slightly due to missing significant income effects except inthe final
values of some of the variables included in model for females, where those from the
thedifferentmodels.Afull accountingofthe poorestfamilieshavesignificantly lower par
observations dropped from the sample is ticipationrates.
containedinAppendixTableA1.
What is alsointeresting is that although
direct comparisonof theincomeandeduca
Results tioneffectsis notpossible because ofthedif
ferentnature(andmetrics)ofthetwosets of
TheBaselineModels measures(dollarsversus years),theparental
The initial estimation results are pre incomeeffects appeartobemuchsmallerin
sented in Table 1, for males and females. magnitude thanthoseofparentaleducation,
These represent aset of baseline estimates at least with respect touniversity entrance.
that are interesting on their own, and that For example, having a parent with a bache
providea pointofdeparture for theanalysis lors degreeincreases the probabilityofgoing
thatfollows as additional variables are added to university by 31.2 percentage points for
tothemodel.The major resulttocomefrom males, compared tosomeonefrom afamily
this exercise and one that is increasingly with high school as the highest levelof pa
prominentintheliterature (e.g.,Ermischand rental education. Contrast this with the
Francesconi,2001)is thattheeffectofparen aforementioned six percentage point in
tal incomeespecially inthelateteenyears crease for males from familieswithincomes
whenPSEdecisionsaremade is diminished over $100,000 compared to incomes in the
greatly once we control for parental $50,00075,000range.
education. 4
Inaddition,wenotethatparentaleduca
Forexample,theresultswithcontrolsfor tion effects both college and university at
males thatdonotinclude parental education tendance these influences runninginoppo
show that a parental income level of sitedirections.Thus,forexample,males with
$100,000 andover is associatedwitha19.1 a parent with a graduate (or professional)
percentage point increaseintheprobability degree are (ceteris paribus) 45.1 percent
ofattendinguniversitycomparedtothe con morelikelytogotouniversity thanthecom
trolgroupof $50,000 to$75,000. Whenpa
3Anotherissueweignoreistheeffectofworkingduringschoolandtheeffectofemployment,numberofhoursworked,etc.onthepost
secondaryeducationchoice.Itisouropinionthisisanimportantandcomplexissueandonethatisbetterleftforaseparateanalysisus
ingtheseorotherdata.
4Inthecaseoftwoparentfamilies,parentaleducationrepresentsthehighestlevelofthetwoparents.Usingothermeasures(suchas
theaveragelevelorthedifferentlevelsofthetwoparents)yieldssimilarfindings.
toDegreeCompletion
parisongroup(parents havecompletedhigh cluded in the model. Restuccia and Urrutia

school), but thiscomespartly at thecost of (2004) show that most of the intergenera
9.2 percent lower rates of college atten tionalpersistenceineducational attainment
dance. Thismakes sense: parentaleducation can be accounted for by innate ability, but
changes notonlyhowmanyindividualsgoon that the quality of early education can en
toPSE(thenetincreaseof35.9 percentrep large these exogenous differences in ability
resentedby thetwoeffects takentogetherin overtime.
theexamplejustgiven),butalsothedistribu
tionofthekindofschooling they engagein AddingHighSchoolGradestotheModel
(increasinguniversitylevel schoolingandde Next we turntoanalysing the influence
creasingcollege level participation).Themul onaccess toPSEofthe grades that students
tinomial logit model used here captures receivedinhighschool atthetimeofthefirst
these effects in the econometrically appro wave of the survey in 2000 when these
priate manner,andalsoinamannerwhichis youngpeople were15years old.Theresults
expositionallyconvenient. of theseestimations arepresentedinacon
densedforminTables2a and2b(malesand
Ourresultsarealsoconsistentwiththose females, respectively). The baseline results
providedbySacerdote(2002),whoalsofinds fromthe fullmodelestimatedinTable 1are
that fathers income (as proxied by occupa also includedtofacilitate the relevant com
tion) and fathers education are important parisons.
determinants of entrance to PSE. He com
pares childrenrandomlyassignedtoadoptive The overall high school average grade
families with children who live with their (numerical score) has a negative effect on
birth parents (the control group). He finds collegeparticipationandapositiveeffecton
that bothgroupsaresimilarly influencedby university participation. The estimates sug
income, but education is an important de gestthata tenpercentagepointhighergrade
terminant of PSE participation only for non average will result in about a three
adopteeswhichofcourse has meaningfor percentage point decrease in college atten
theinterpretationof the two kindsofinflu dance, but about a21 percentage point in
ences. This finding is echoed by Plug and crease in university participation. Thus,
Vijverberg(2003)whomodel parentalability higher grades shift the distribution of PSE
as having botha direct effect ontheir chil participationfrom collegetouniversity,with
drens educational attainment as well as an a strong net increase in PSE participation.
indirect effect through income. They argue
that higher ability parents earn higher in
comes andthese incomes arealsoimportant
inputs intoachilds education.They findthat
the effects of parental ability are reduced
fromabout7075percentofthe total ability
transfer to some 5560 per cent when the
indirect effects of ability on income are in
These results are almost identical for both whoare auniversitygraduateonmalesuni

femalesandmales.5 versity attendance declines from 45.1 per
centage points inthe model with no grade
Highschoolgrades ineach of math,lan variables (the Baseline results), to 24.2
guage, and science (also numerical scores), percent whenthey are all included(column
also yield coefficients of the same sign, al 5).For women,thechange isfrom37.2 per
though of smaller magnitudes, suggesting cent to 19.9 percent. These results suggest
thatitis overall grades,ratherthananyindi that the influence of parental education
vidual grade,thatisimportantindetermining works, at least in part, through highschool
participationinuniversity or college.Indeed, grades, whereas income is capturing some
whenthemodelis estimatedwithallgrades thing other than this indeed, perhaps a
included (column 5), it is the overall grade pure income effect (aninference whichis
thatis ofparamountimportanceindetermin strengthenedbytheresultswhichfollow).
inguniversityattendance.
This finding isinteresting to compare to
Aninterestingparticularresultis thatthe what isreportedinCarneiro and Heckman,
mathgradeisnumericallythe leastimportant 2002 (and in other work by Heckman and
in determining university attendance, various coauthors). They find that the sig
whether thevariableentersthemodelindi nificant effectsof family income onU.S. col
vidually or jointly withtheother gradevari lege attendance (university for us) are
ables. Thelackofnumeracyskills(atleastas largely eliminatedonce anIQ test score ob
reflectedbythemathgrade)does notappear tainedwhenthepersonwasinhis orhermid
tobe asimportant asthelanguagegradein teensis included in the model. Their inter
any of the specifications for either sex. Of pretation in a context wherethey donot
coursethis resultcouldchangeifwewere to includeparentaleducationintheirmodels
look at specific area of study, with math is thatfamilyincomeis,intheabsenceofthe
grades likely to berelated toentry into the test score, proxying a familysinputs to the
sciences, engineering, and other disciplines childs schooling and other such influences.
whichdependmoreontherelatedskillsets. Our findingofa reducedparental education
effect ashigh schoolgradesare added pre
Another interesting result isthat the ef sumably stemsfroma similar setofrelation
fects of parental income remain relatively ships,except thatit is theeffects ofparental
unchangedwhen high school grades arein educationonachilds highschooloutcomes
cluded,whereastheeffectofparental educa which is being captured when grades are
tionisattenuated,insomecases significantly omittedfromthe model, rather thantheef
so, inboth the casesof malesand females. fectsoffamily incomeonthese.Meanwhile,
For example, the effect of having parents ourfindingofanenduringincomeeffectsug
5Categoricalgradeswerealsotriedinplaceofthecontinuousnumericalgradesinthesetwotables(e.g.,5060%,6070%,etc.).There
sultswereessentialthesameasthosepresentedhere;thosewithhighergradeswerelesslikelytoparticipateincollegebutmorelikelyto
participateinuniversity.Thenumericalgradesusedhereweresetatthemeansofthesecategoricalvariables(e.g.,6070percentequals
65percent,etc.).AppendixTableA2containsdetailsofthegradedistributions.Gradeswerealsoenteredasaquadraticinthemodel.
Again,therewerenoimportantdifferenceswiththeresultspresentedhere.
11 Effects of UniversityCharacteristics and Academic Regulations on Student Persistence, Degree Completion,and
TimetoDegreeCompletion
gests money mightbematteringat thepoint Themost importantoftheseis academic

ofentryintoPSEinaway HeckmanandCar participation(ameasureofattendingschool,
neirodidnotfind. doinghomework,etc.)whichisimportanton
its own and also as comprising onehalf of
AddingtheScaleVariables theacademicengagementvariable, whichis
The YITS also includes a set of scale a simple average of academic participation
variables,whichareindices derivedfrombat andacademicidentification, the latter being
teries ofquestions designedtomeasurevari basicallya measure ofvaluingandbelonging
ous aspectsofa persons engagementinhigh at school. For females, being one standard
school,selfesteem,parentalbehaviours,etc. deviationabove themeanonthis academic
A full description of these variables, which participationscaleincreases university atten
are basedondata collectedinthe firstsurvey danceby about 13.9 percentagepoints, and
whentheindividuals inthesamplewereage formalesthe figureisabout10.6percentage
15, canbe foundinAppendix Table A3. Ac points.Thus,studentswhoattendclass regu
companyingsummarystatistics arecontained larly, complete assignments on time, and
inTableA4. spend more time studying, are much more
likely toattenduniversity thanthose whodo
These variables, with the exception of nothavethese habits.Theacademicidentifi
readingability(seebelow),arenormalizedat cation effects are significant, but a little
meanzero anda standarddeviationofone. weaker,inthe67percenteffectrange.
This isimportanttokeepinmindwheninter
preting theresultsbelow.6 Theinfluence of In addition, the influence of parental
thesescale variablesoncollegeanduniver education declines in importance once aca
sity attendanceisreportedin Tables 3a and demic participation is included, suggesting
3b for males and females. These are again that the two variables are positively corre
enteredintothebasicmodelindividually and lated, presumably because parents with
then jointly in the final column of these moreeducation tendtoteachtheir children
tables.7 tohavegoodworkhabits andsoonorbe
cause they otherwise purchase the inputs
Each of the three high school engage (extracurricular activities, clubs, etc.) that
mentvariables(aswellasthetwosubcatego buildthesebehaviours,or becausethey oth
ries thatcomprisethe academicengagement erwise transfer or generate the attributes
variable academic identification and aca thatbuildacademicparticipation.
demic participation) is positively related to
universityattendance,buthas littleinfluence Socialengagementreflects the degreeto
oncollegeattendance. whichanindividual feels accepted,respected
6Thevariablesalsotendtohavesubstantialdistributions(AppendixTableA4),indicatingthattheyareindeedcapturingsomething,
whichisofcoursereflectedinthesignificanteffectstheyseemtocarryasseenintheresultswhichfollow.
7Tocheckfornonlinearities,separateestimateswereconductedusingbothaquadraticspecificationofthescalevariablesaswellas
categoricaldummyvariables.Aswiththecaseofhighschoolgrades,therearenoimportantdifferencesbetweentheseresultsandthe
resultsreportedhere.
andincludedinthehighschool environment, Parental behaviour is divided into three

andalthoughitispositivelyrelatedtouniver subcategories: monitoring behaviour ad
sity participationforbothmalesandfemales, dresses howwellparents feel informedabout
the effects are relatively weak. Those who theactivitiesoftheirchildren,whilenurtur
are one standarddeviation above themean ancebehaviourandinconsistentdiscipline
onthismeasure,for example,are abouttwo are bothselfexplanatory. Ofthese,monitor
percentage points morelikely to attenduni ing behaviour is positively relatedtouniver
versity.Themeasure hasnosignificanteffect sity attendancefor bothmales andfemales,
oncollegeattendance. whilenurturing isimportant only for males.
Neither hasany influenceoncollege partici
Selfperceptionwouldalsoseemtobean pation.Finally,inconsistentdiscipline isnega
important determinant of PSE participation. tivelyrelatedtoparticipationinuniversityfor
Selfperceptioniscapturedbythree separate bothsexes but againisnotrelatedtocollege
variables: selfesteem is a measure of self participation. Themagnitudes oftheseinflu
worthandselfacceptance,selfefficacyisthe ences lay in the23 percentage range (uni
students ownperceptionof his or hercom versity attendance) where significant, less
petence and confidenceinperforming class wherenot(notsurprisingly).
work,andselfmastery is a measureofbeing
incontrol ofonesowndestiny.Studentswho Reading ability is an extraordinarily im
scoredhighonany or allof thesemeasures portant correlate of PSE participation. This
might be more prepared to enter PSE, and variable has a mean of 500 anda standard
the results in fact show that all three are deviation of 100 andwas created from the
positively and significantly correlated with crossnational Programme for International
university but notcollegeattendance,at Student Assessment (PISA) reading test re
least whenenteredindividually.Selfefficacy, sults. Thepointestimates showthatfemales
however, has the largest effect for both whowere onestandarddeviationabovethe
males andfemales,abouttwicetheimpactof mean were, on average, 23percentage
theothertwomeasures. points more likely of attending university
(andjustslightlyless likelytoattendcollege).
Socialsupportis statisticallyimportantfor For males, the corresponding figure is 18
males,butthecoefficientestimates are rela percentagepoints.
tivelysmall,andthevariableis notsignificant
for females. Theseresults thussuggest that Ofnotehereisthefactthatthe effects of
thosewholooktoimprovingthese elements parental educationdonotchangevery much
of ayoungpersons situationasa meansof whenthescalevariablesareadded,implying
causingmoreofthemtoenrol inPSEwould, thatthese variablesare nothighlyrelatedin
therefore, appear to have the oddsstacked their effects. Theexceptions tothisareaca
against them in terms of getting significant demicparticipation,selfefficacy,andreading
resultswithanysuchstrategies. ability inthecaseofuniversity participation.
Inthefirsttwoinstancestheeffects ofparen
tal educationdeclinestoa moderatedegree,
whiletheinclusionofthereadingscorede When all these scale variables are con

creases the value of parental education at sidered together (column 15 in the tables),
thebachelors andgraduatelevels (forexam theresults continuetosuggestrelativelylittle
ple) by approximately onethird for both influence on college participation hardly
males andfemales (comparecolumns 1 and surprising given the general lack of impact
13 in Tables 3a and 3b). The PISA reading whenenteredindividually.
scoreisastandardizedtestandtheseresults
are again comparable to those obtained by For university attendance, however, and
Carneiro and Heckman (2002) who also use despite the large number of regressors in
standardized test scores to explain differ cluded,some ofwhichwouldbe expectedto
ences in college attendance in the United becorrelatedandhave somewhat similar ef
States. fects,certainstronginfluences continuetobe
seen. In particular, academic participation,
It is important to note that the PISA selfefficacy and reading ability all remain
scores arebasedonactual tests,whereasthe important, althoughtherelative magnitudes
highschoolgrades(such asthoseshown in of these variables continue to differ. A one
Tables 2a and 2b) are selfreported. Finnie standard deviation increase from the mean
and Meng (2005) have shown that these of academic participationraises female uni
types oftest scoremeasures ofskill perform versity participationratesby about 8.8 per
better thanselfassessmentsof skill. In par centage points on average. For males, the
ticular,theyuseliteracyas anexampleusing corresponding figure is 6.8 percentage
bothtypes of measures(i.e., testscoresand points. One standard deviation above the
selfreported ability), and find that theself meanontheselfefficacyscale meansalmost
assessed measure tendsto leadtoa signifi a fivepercentagepoint increase inuniversity
cantunderestimationofthe effectofliteracy attendanceforbothfemalesandmales.
onemploymentcomparedtothetestmeas
ure. Inthepresent work, this bias may also Reading ability clearly hasthelargest ef
bepresent, as indicated by thegreater esti fect.Forfemales,a score onestandarddevia
matedeffect andassociateddecrease inthe tion above the meanisassociatedwith the
magnitude oftheparentaleducationvariable woman being 19 percentage points more
(mainlyatthe BAandgraduateschoollevels) likely toattenduniversity,andfor malesthe
whenthestandardizedtestscoreis included correspondingfigure is 15percentage points.
(Tables 3) versus when the selfassessed Withthemeanuniversity participationrates
measureofabilityareincludedinthe models for males and females in our sample being
(Tables2).8 30.9 and44.7per cent, respectively,reading
ability isclearly a majordeterminant ofwho
goes andwhodoesnot. Since readingability
8OneonlyneedstocomparethedeclineintheBAandgraduateschoolcoefficientvaluesinTables2andTables3whenmeasuresof
readingabilityareincluded.Intheformercase(column3ofTables2aand2b),itisthemainlanguagegradeofthelastyearinhighschool
(selfreported)whichisincludedwhereasinthelattercase(column13ofTables3aand3b)itistheadministrativePISAreadingtestscore
whichisused.Inclusionoftheselfreportedmeasureresultsinamodestdeclineintheinfluencesofparentaleducation,whereasinthe
lattercasethesedropsarequitedramatic.
is a skillderivedover aperiod of time, this OverviewoftheFindings

resultis alsoconsistentwiththeearlierwork Whatcanwemake oftheseresultstaken
on this subject by Cameron and Heckman together? The fact that academic participa
(1998, 2001) and Carneiro and Heckman tionatthehighschoollevel andhigherPISA
(2002),allofwhichpoint totheimportance readingability results are importantdetermi
of longterm family factors in determining nantsofuniversityeducationseems obvious.
success inPSEthroughtheinvestmentsfami Thelessonhereis that talent, working hard
lies make in their childrens early cognitive andbeingresponsible about onesstudies is
andbehaviouraldevelopment. important. These effects arealso clearly re
lated to parental education (especially par
Other variables that continue to show entswithaBAor above) as thecoefficients
some significance,althoughina moremixed onthesevariables indicatethattheyare less
fashion (menversus women) andindicating important(direct)determinants ofuniversity
generally smaller effects, includesocial sup participation when these other background
port, which continues to have the curious variablesareaddedtothemodel.
effect of slightly decreasing university par
ticipation(men and women) and increasing Thetransmissionmechanismfromparent
college participation in the case of women; to child, however, cannot be ascertained
parental monitoring,whichhas asmall posi fromour estimates. Dohighly educatedpar
tive effect on university attendance for fe entspushtheirchildrenharder,providethem
males; and inconsistent parental discipline, with more and/or better developmental in
whichhasa small negativeeffect onuniver puts, or are reading ability and academic
sityparticipationformalesandfemalesalike. work habits transmitted by some other
mechanism?Indeed,isthere a pure(genetic)
Thegeneralresultspresentedaboveare heritability component to these relation
alsoconsistent withthe sparseCanadianlit ships?Understandingtheserelationshipsand
eraturewhichattempts toinclude additional mechanisms would, of course, be a useful
background factors in models of access to line for further research,usingthe YITSdata
PSE. In particular, Finnie, Lascelles and orotherkindsofanalysis.
Sweetman (2005) also find that including a
varietyofhighschool gradesandotherback The generally small and often insignifi
groundvariables reducestheinfluenceofpa cant coefficients on the parental behaviour
rental educationonaccess(they donothave variables seem to provide some supporting
a family incomevariable).They alsofindthat evidence forthekindsofexplanationthatlay
parental educationisstill animportantinflu beyondparents simplypushingtheirchildren
enceafterthesegrades andbackgroundvari to do better or providing them with richer
ables aretakenintoconsideration,especially developmentalexperiences. Inany case, our
attheuniversitylevel.Ourresultsaresimilar. results dounderlinetheimportance offamily
backgroundandnaturalskill endowmentsas
emphasized by Cameron and Heckman
(2001), Keane and Wolpin (2001), and Car
neiro and Heckman (2002), to name but First, a major determinant of university
threeoftherelevantrecentstudies. participationistheindividualsscoreon the
readingportionofthecrosscountryPISAtest
Finally, the models all point toa smaller, probably our best measure of overall/
butrobust,direct/independenteffectoffam general ability, while also representing a
ily income on access to PSE, regardless of particularskillset(i.e.,literacy).
what other explanatory variables areadded
tothemodel after theestimatedinfluence Second, overall high school grades, as
declinesharply withtheadditionofthepa wellasthe three subject gradesunder con
rental educationvariables. Family incomeis sideration, also tend to be positively corre
not, it seems, just capturing inputs to a lated with university attendance, and more
childsdevelopment or the otherkinds ofin weakly, negatively correlated with college
fluences whichour fuller models areableto attendance (as students with higher grades
control for. Again, the precise manner in evidently shift their PSE participation from
whichfamilyincomedirectlyaffectsaccessto collegetouniversity). Furthermore, it is the
PSEremainsbeyondthescopeofthispaper. overall high school grade, rather than any
individual subject grade,whichhas thelarg
est influence. This is an interesting result
ConclusionsandPolicyImplications sinceit isoften assumedthat languagearts
This researchhasaddressedhowvarious andmathematicsgrades arethe mostimpor
backgroundfactors are relatedtocollegeand tant determinants ofacademicsuccess. Still,
university inCanada,anda numberofinter our result makes sense in light of the fact
estingresults have beenfound.Mostimpor that most students take a general studies
tant,probably,is thatthatour findings agree programuponenteringuniversity,soitis not
withtheincreasinglycommonresultfoundin surprisingthat a comparably general creden
theliterature that the impact of parental in tial is themostimportantdeterminantofPSE
comeisgreatly reducedonce abroader set participationatthatlevel.Theseresults also
of explanatory variables are added to the makesensegiventhestructure oftheuniver
model. In our case, thegreatest part of the sity and college systems inCanada; thefor
decline occurs when parental education is meris moreexclusive, withadmissionbeing
included.Inother words, parentaleducation basedonhighschool grades,whilethe latter
andthevarious influencestowhichparen is generally characterisedby moreopenad
tal educationappears toberelated(suchas a missionpolicies.
childs reading ability in high school) and
not parental income is what largely drives Third, engagement at high school, espe
young peopletoattend PSE in general, and cially academic participation, which essen
university in particular. That being said, a tially relatestoanindividualsworkhabits,is
smallish pure (direct) income effect re also a significant determinant of university
mains. Our other major findings are as fol (but not college) participation. In fact, it is
lows. the most important of all the engagement
variables, althoughselfefficacy (or afeeling
of competenceandconfidenceat school)is The policy implications of this research

alsosignificant. are notstraightforward.Parentaleducationis
correlated with other background variables
Fourth, when high school grades, aca that arethemselves importantdeterminants
demicparticipation, or thereadingscoreon ofPSEparticipation.Itisunrealistictoexpect
thePISA areaddedtothe basic model, the policy tochange theexigentlevelofparental
direct effect of parental educationis dimin education,althoughpolicy couldinfluence its
ished,butis farfromeliminated,andremains level fortodays youngpeoplefor whenthey
an important (independent) determinant of themselves areparents.Therefore,theshort
access toPSE,especiallyuniversity.The larg term policy focusmust beonthefactors to
est drop in the parental education effect whichparental education isrelated, as well
comes fromtheinclusionofthePISAreading as the other direct influences on access to
ability score, probablythemostreliableindi PSEidentifiedinourmodels,suchasreading
cator of ability among the backgroundvari ability, academic participation, and high
ables includedinthemodel (many of which schoolgrades.
areselfreported).
Still, this may not be as simple as it
In other words, parental education ap seems.Currentresearchinthis area (Cunha,
pears to work through these other sets of et al., 2006; CunhaandHeckman, 2007)re
variables (reading ability, coursegrades,stu jects theideathat economicoutcomes such
dent behaviours, etc.) toinfluence accessto as access to higher education can be ade
PSE.We cannot,however,identifyfromthese quately explained using an additive nature/
estimatesthe precise paththatthisinfluence nurturedichotomy.Rather the acquisitionof
takes. It could be the result of highly edu skillsis complex andinvolvestheinteraction
cated parents expecting more of their chil between cognitive, noncognitive and envi
dren, teaching their children better work ronmental influences. Furthermore, invest
habits,providingthemwithmore andbetter mentinskill formationfeeds onpastinvest
developmental inputs, shaping their prefer ments inthesame. Yet althoughit isinvest
ences for PSE and the sorts of careers and ments early in life which have the highest
lifestyles itentails,oritcouldbedue tosome rateofreturn, thelackoftheseinvestments
otherinputsorothercharacteristicpassedon can(at least inpart)beovercomebyinvest
from parent to child which are correlated mentslaterinlife.9
with parental education, but not observed
nor controlled for in the estimates. Further According to Heckman (2000) cognitive
disentangling these relationships would abilities (as measuredby IQ)maypeakearly
clearly an important avenue for future re inlifeandremainstableafter aboutage10,
search. but other abilities such as motivation, self
9HeckmanandMasterov(2007:6)note:Gapsincollegeattendanceacrosssocioeconomicgroupsarelargelyshapedbyabilitiesformed
intheearlyyears.Gapsinchildabilityacrossfamiliesofdifferentincomelevelsareassociatedwithparentalenvironmentsandparenting
practices.Earlyinterventionscanpartiallyremediatethesedeficits.Laterinterventionsaremuchlesseffective.Heckman(2007)also
extensivelydiscussesthisfactorsassociatedwiththisparticipationgapbetweensocioeconomicgroups.
discipline, and social skills canbe enhanced And it is perhaps here where new re
atlaterages.Theseare factors whichmoreor sources need to be principally targeted if
lesscorrespondtothevariablesincluded in access patterns are to be significantly
thepresentresearchwhicharepositively re changed, rather than for example con
lated to university access. This implies that tinuing to focus on student financial aid.
eventhoseindividualswitha lowprobability Adequate student aid is certainly a critical
of PSE participation based on family back element of any access policy, but it is only
groundmay beabletoovercomethisobsta one ofmany,andstudents needtoi)bepre
cle withthedevelopmentofcomplementary paredfor PSE, andii) wanttogotoPSE be
skills as they move through childhood and fore anyaidpolicy canfacilitate theresulting
intoadolescence.Itis theprocesses bywhich choices forenteringthesystem.Anditseems
thesecomplementaryskills areacquiredafter likely from this research and what others
tenyears ofage,butbeforethe PSEdecision havebeenreportingoflatethatany gains in
is made, that would provide a most useful this respect willhave tofocusonmorefun
avenue of research in the mediumterm, as damentalissues,anddevelopments earlierin
policy makersponder thequestionofbring a persons life, rather than simply provide
ingtodayspostprimaryschoolstudents into enoughfinancialsupport at the point aper
PSE. sonmaychoosetoenterthesystem.
References
Barr,Nicholas.1993.Alternative FundingResources forHigherEducation,1993.TheEconomicJournal
103(418),718728.
Cameron, StephenV., andJamesJ. Heckman.1998.LifeCycle SchoolingandDynamicSelectionBias:

Models andEvidenceforFiveCohorts ofAmericanMales,Journalof PoliticalEconomy 106(2),
262333.
Cameron,StephenV.,andJames J.Heckman.2001.TheDynamicsofEducationalAttainmentforBlack,
Hispanic,andWhiteMales,JournalofPoliticalEconomy109(3),45599.
Carneiro, Pablo, andJamesJ.Heckman. 2002.TheEvidenceonCredit ConstraintsinPostSecondary

Schooling,TheEconomicJournal112(482),70534.
Chapman, Bruce. 1997. Conceptual Issues and the Australian Experience with Income Contingent
ChargesforHigherEducation,TheEconomicJournal107(442),73851.
Christophides,LouisN.,JimCirello,andMichael Hoy.2001.FamilyIncome andPostSecondaryEduca

tioninCanada,CanadianJournalofHigherEducation,31(1),177208.
Coelli,Michael.2005.Tuition,RationingandInequalityinPostSecondary EducationAttendance,Uni
versityofBritishColumbiaWorkingPaper.
Corak, Miles,GarthLipps, andJohnZhao. 2003. Family Income andParticipationin PostSecondary

Education,StatisticsCanada,AnalyticalStudies,ResearchPaperNo.210.
Cunha,Flavio,James J.Heckman,LanceLochner,andDimitriyV.Masterov.2006.InterpretingEvidence
ofLife CycleSkill Formation,inHandbookoftheEconomics ofEducation,Vol.1.Ed. EricA. Ha
nushekandFinisWelch.NewYork:Elsevier,697812.
Cunha,Flavio,andJames J.Heckman.2007.TheTechnology ofSkill Formation,AmericanEconomic

Review,PapersandProceedings97(2),3147.
Drolet,Marie.2005.ParticipationinPostsecondaryEducationinCanada: HastheRoleofParental In
comeandEducationChangedoverthe1990s? StatisticsCanada, Analytical StudiesBranchRe
searchPaperSeriesNo.243.
Ermisch,John,andMarcoFrancesconi.2001.FamilyMatters:ImpactsofFamilyBackgroundonEduca
tionalAttainments,Economica68(270),13756.
Finnie,Ross,EricLascelles,andArthurSweetman.2005.WhoGoes?TheDirectandIndirectEffectsof
Family Background on Access toPostsecondary Education, inHigher EducationinCanada. Ed.
Beach, CharlesM., RobinW. Boadway, and R. MarvinMcInnis. Montreal andKingston: McGill
QueensUniversityPress,295338.
Finnie,Ross, andRonaldMeng.2005.LiteracyandLabourMarketOutcomes:Selfassessment versus

TestScoreMeasures,AppliedEconomics37(17),193551.
Frenette, Marc.2005. TheImpactofTuitionFees onUniversity Access: Evidencefrom a Largescale

PriceDeregulationinProfessional Programs,StatisticsCanada,AnalyticalStudies ResearchPaper
SeriesNo.263.
Frenette, Marc. 2007. Why areYouthfromLowerincome Families LessLikely toAttendUniversity?

Evidencefrom Academic Abilities,ParentalInfluences, andFinancial ConstraintsStatistics Can
ada,AnalyticalStudiesResearchPaperSeriesNo.295.
Heckman,JamesJ.2000.PoliciestoFosterHumanCapital,ResearchinEconomics54(1),356.
Heckman,JamesJ.2007.TheEconomics,Technology andNeuroscience ofHumanCapability Forma

tion,NBERWorkingPaperNo.13195.
Heckman,JamesJ.,andDimitryV.Masterov.2007.TheProductivityArgument forInvestinginYoung
Children,NBERWorkingPaperNo.13016.
Junor,Sean, andAlexUsher.2004. ThePriceofKnowledge2004: Access andStudentFinanceinCan

ada.Montreal:TheCanadianMillenniumScholarshipFoundation.
Keane,Michael P.2002.Financial Aid,BorrowingConstraints,andCollege Attendance:Evidencefrom

StructuralEstimates,AmericanEconomicReview,PapersandProceedings92(2),2937.
Keane,Michael P.,andKennethI.Wolpin.2001.The EffectofParentalTransfers andBorrowingCon

straintsonEducationAttainment,InternationalEconomicReview42(4),10511103.
Murray,Charles.2002.IQandIncomeInequalityinaSampleofSiblingPairs fromAdvantagedFamily
Backgrounds,AmericanEconomicReview,PapersandProceedings92(2),33943.
Plug,Erik,andWimVijverberg.2003.Schooling,FamilyBackground,andAdoption:IsitNatureorisit
Nurture?JournalofPoliticalEconomy111(3),61141.
Restuccia,Diego,andCarlosUrrutia.2004.IntergenerationalPersistenceinEarnings:TheRoleofEarly
andCollegeEducation,AmericanEconomicReview94(5),135478.
Sacerdote,Bruce.2002.The NatureandNurtureofEconomicOutcomes,AmericanEconomicReview,
PapersandProceedings92(2),34448.
TablesandFigures
Table1.MultinomialLogitEstimatesofAccesstoCollegeandUniversity
Males Females
1 2 1 2
College University College University College University College University
HSlocationUrban(Rural) 0.0486 0.102 0.0445 0.0755 0.0944 0.0686 0.0825 0.0351*
[0.016] [0.019] [0.016] [0.018] [0.016] [0.019] [0.016] [0.018]
HSProvince(ON)
NewfoundlandandLabrador 0.111 0.127 0.112 0.109 0.130 0.142 0.124 0.137
[0.023] [0.028] [0.023] [0.026] [0.022] [0.026] [0.022] [0.025]
PrinceEdwardIsland 0.155 0.238 0.150 0.200 0.173 0.216 0.163 0.188
[0.021] [0.029] [0.022] [0.027] [0.019] [0.025] [0.019] [0.024]
NovaScotia 0.145 0.242 0.137 0.193 0.169 0.219 0.158 0.195
[0.020] [0.026] [0.021] [0.025] [0.018] [0.023] [0.019] [0.023]
NewBrunswick 0.165 0.172 0.165 0.157 0.163 0.178 0.157 0.160
[0.020] [0.027] [0.019] [0.025] [0.019] [0.023] [0.019] [0.023]
Manitoba 0.215 0.0898 0.211 0.0768 0.148 0.0784 0.147 0.0780
[0.016] [0.029] [0.016] [0.027] [0.020] [0.026] [0.020] [0.025]
Saskatchewan 0.170 0.0825 0.174 0.0673 0.139 0.0437* 0.140 0.0378
[0.018] [0.025] [0.018] [0.023] [0.019] [0.025] [0.019] [0.023]
Alberta 0.141 0.0244 0.143 0.0269 0.0909 0.0904 0.0957 0.0820
[0.018] [0.021] [0.018] [0.020] [0.020] [0.023] [0.019] [0.021]
BritishColumbia 0.0868 0.00949 0.0882 0.00658 0.0592 0.0569 0.0616 0.0596
[0.020] [0.022] [0.020] [0.020] [0.020] [0.022] [0.020] [0.021]
FrenchminorityoutsideQC(All 0.0574* 0.0135 0.0565* 0.0118 0.0464 0.0101 0.0520* 0.0125
Others) [0.031] [0.036] [0.030] [0.032] [0.029] [0.032] [0.029] [0.031]
FamilyType(TwoParents)
Motheronly 0.0308 0.0107 0.0289 0.00589 0.0153 0.0216 0.0183 0.0124
[0.024] [0.033] [0.025] [0.030] [0.024] [0.029] [0.024] [0.028]
Fatheronly 0.00461 0.0546 0.0219 0.0719 0.0116 0.046 0.0121 0.0412
[0.053] [0.061] [0.056] [0.055] [0.053] [0.066] [0.052] [0.060]
Other 0.0394 0.0843 0.0299 0.0365 0.0305 0.186 0.0368 0.161
[0.058] [0.084] [0.064] [0.10] [0.053] [0.068] [0.053] [0.063]
Visibleminority(Allothers) 0.0103 0.187 0.00529 0.174 0.00087 0.142 0.0111 0.114
[0.027] [0.032] [0.027] [0.030] [0.027] [0.031] [0.027] [0.031]
Canadianbyimmigration(by 0.0259 0.150 0.0026 0.0516 0.057 0.182 0.0297 0.111
birth) [0.038] [0.046] [0.040] [0.044] [0.035] [0.041] [0.037] [0.041]
VisibleMinority&Canadianby 0.0122 0.112 0.0188 0.0682 0.000965 0.0898 0.00651 0.0468
immigration(others) [0.055] [0.046] [0.054] [0.053] [0.063] [0.062] [0.062] [0.062]
Parental/guardian'sEducation
(HScompleted)
LessthanHS 0.0691 0.0676 0.0353 0.118
[0.029] [0.027] [0.029] [0.032]
SomePSE 0.0119 0.0585* 0.0409 0.0454
[0.031] [0.033] [0.033] [0.035]
Trade/College 0.0212 0.0761 0.0103 0.0618
[0.021] [0.022] [0.020] [0.024]
0.00123 0.163 0.0811 0.302
UniversitybelowBAdegree
[0.039] [0.046] [0.034] [0.040]
UniversityBA 0.0488 0.312 0.0807 0.299
[0.022] [0.030] [0.022] [0.027]
UniversityGrad 0.0922 0.451 0.143 0.372
[0.026] [0.035] [0.025] [0.032]
Other/unknown

Continued
Table1continued
Males Females
1 2 1 2
College University College University College University College University
ParentalIncomeLevel
($50000to$75000)
Extremelylow($0$5000) 0.015 0.0209 0.0159 0.00268 0.101 0.0773 0.0951 0.087
[0.071] [0.080] [0.071] [0.069] [0.046] [0.097] [0.047] [0.095]
$5000to$25000 0.016 0.108 0.03 0.0481 0.0226 0.191 0.0288 0.102
[0.033] [0.034] [0.035] [0.037] [0.029] [0.036] [0.029] [0.038]
$25000to$50000 0.0198 0.0567 0.0228 0.0134 0.00074 0.124 0.00816 0.0815
[0.020] [0.022] [0.020] [0.021] [0.019] [0.023] [0.020] [0.023]
$75000to$100000 0.00145 0.110 0.0167 0.0401* 0.0121 0.0659 0.00336 0.0205
[0.019] [0.025] [0.020] [0.023] [0.020] [0.024] [0.020] [0.023]
$100000andup 0.0105 0.191 0.0191 0.0601 0.0526 0.198 0.0143 0.103
[0.022] [0.028] [0.023] [0.026] [0.022] [0.025] [0.023] [0.026]
Observations 7852 7852 8311 8311
Notes: Average marginaleffectsareshown.Omittedcategoriesareinparenthesis.Standarderrorsareinbrackets.p<0.01,p<0.05,*
p<0.1.
Table2a.EffectsofHighSchoolGradesonAccesstoCollegeandUniversity,Males
Baseline 1 2 3 4 5
College Univer College Univer College Univer College Univer College Univer College Univer
sity sity sity sity sity sity
Parental/guardian's
Education(HScom
pleted)
LessthanHS 0.0691 0.0676 0.0624 0.0473* 0.0721 0.0671 0.0717 0.0591 0.0594* 0.0527* 0.0551 0.0475*
*
[0.029] [0.027] [0.0309] [0.0248] [0.0297] [0.0273] [0.0299] [0.0276] [0.0311] [0.0269] [0.0333][0.0259]
SomePSE 0.012 0.0585* 0.019 0.013 0.014 0.044 0.016 0.043 0.024 0.050 0.028 0.008
[0.031] [0.033] [0.0317] [0.0249] [0.0315] [0.0296] [0.0315] [0.0297] [0.0326] [0.0312] [0.0332][0.0257]
Trade/College 0.021 0.0761 0.023 0.0517 0.018 0.0709 0.018 0.0641 0.018 0.0736 0.021 0.0483
[0.021] [0.022] [0.0213] [0.0194] [0.0212] [0.0212] [0.0212] [0.0209] [0.0214] [0.0209] [0.0220][0.0196]
Universitybelow 0.001 0.163 0.004 0.1146 0.004 0.1518 0.004 0.1366 0.007 0.1601 0.002 0.1161
BAdegree
[0.039] [0.046] [0.0396] [0.0397] [0.0396] [0.0441] [0.0407] [0.0425] [0.0400] [0.0423] [0.0410][0.0417]
UniversityBA 0.0488 0.312 0.031 0.1981 0.0428* 0.2707 0.0438 0.2519 0.0466 0.2369 0.031 0.1692
[0.022] [0.030] [0.0224] [0.0252] [0.0223] [0.0287] [0.0220] [0.0278] [0.0223] [0.0263] [0.0230][0.0242]
UniversityGrad 0.09220.451 0.0575 0.2869 0.09000.3909 0.0723 0.3455 0.0704 0.3293 0.0510 0.2416
*
[0.026] [0.035] [0.0286] [0.0306] [0.0268] [0.0335] [0.0282] [0.0349] [0.0284] [0.0329] [0.0298][0.0304]
Other/unknown

ParentalIncomeLevel
($50000to$75000)
Extremelylow($0 0.016 0.003 0.025 0.026 0.014 0.004 0.017 0.010 0.039 0.004 0.033 0.032
$5000)
[0.071] [0.069] [0.0703] [0.0496] [0.0706] [0.0629] [0.0716] [0.0614] [0.0624] [0.0708] [0.0613][0.0549]
$5000to$25000 0.030 0.048 0.045 0.047 0.036 0.034 0.034 0.032 0.026 0.008 0.047 0.013
[0.035] [0.037] [0.0366] [0.0341] [0.0356] [0.0365] [0.0361] [0.0380] [0.0356] [0.0395] [0.0386][0.0371]
$25000to$50000 0.023 0.013 0.026 0.000 0.023 0.000 0.018 0.002 0.022 0.003 0.027 0.010
[0.020] [0.021] [0.0201] [0.0183] [0.0201] [0.0206] [0.0199] [0.0201] [0.0205] [0.0200] [0.0209][0.0185]
$75000to$100000 0.017 0.0401* 0.013 0.0410 0.015 0.0425* 0.013 0.0359* 0.002 0.0508 0.001 0.0438
[0.020] [0.023] [0.0194] [0.0190] [0.0197] [0.0221] [0.0195] [0.0210] [0.0195] [0.0211] [0.0194][0.0188]
$100000andup 0.019 0.0601 0.020 0.0629 0.022 0.0669 0.019 0.0570 0.016 0.0519 0.018 0.0608
[0.023] [0.026] [0.0228] [0.0225] [0.0234] [0.0248] [0.0231] [0.0243] [0.0235] [0.0239] [0.0233][0.0221]
Overallgradeoflast 0.00330.0211 0.0022 0.0154
yearHS(numerical) *
[0.0008] [0.0006] [0.0012][0.0011]
Mathgradeoflast 0.0012 0.0101 0.000 0.001
yearHS(numerical) [0.0006] [0.0006] [0.0007][0.0007]
Mainlanguagegrade 0.00240.0137 0.0019 0.0029
oflastyearHS(nu
merical)
[0.0007] [0.0006] [0.0008][0.0008]
SciencegradeofHS 0.00120.0125 0.000 0.0053
(numerical)
[0.0004] [0.0005] [0.0005][0.0006]
Observations 7852 7677 7626 7643 7223 6924
Notes: Averagemarginaleffectsare shown. Omittedcategoriesareinparenthesis. Controlsinclude allthose inTable1. Standarderrors
areinbrackets.p<0.01,p<0.05,*p<0.1.Fullresultsareavailableuponrequest.
Table2b.EffectsofHighSchoolGradesonAccesstoCollegeandUniversity,Females
Baseline 1 2 3 4 5
Univer Univer Univer Univer Univer Univer
College College College College College College
sity sity sity sity sity sity
Parental/guardian's
Education
(HScompleted)
0.035 0.118 0.037 0.0675 0.039 0.1092 0.035 0.0972 0.043 0.0714 0.045 0.050
LessthanHS
[0.029] [0.032] [0.0293] [0.0319] [0.0292] [0.0324] [0.0298] [0.0329] [0.0284] [0.0342] [0.0294] [0.0334]
SomePSE 0.041 0.045 0.038 0.047 0.035 0.048 0.033 0.027 0.043 0.042 0.031 0.049
[0.033] [0.035] [0.0326] [0.0332] [0.0328] [0.0353] [0.0327] [0.0336] [0.0327] [0.0332] [0.0328] [0.0330]
Trade/College 0.010 0.0618 0.010 0.0436 0.012 0.0623 0.012 0.0434* 0.006 0.0395* 0.011 0.0363*
[0.020] [0.024] [0.0201] [0.0217] [0.0205] [0.0238] [0.0202] [0.0225] [0.0201] [0.0223] [0.0203] [0.0216]
Universitybelow 0.0811 0.302 0.044 0.1868 0.0772 0.2821 0.0708 0.2478 0.038 0.2057 0.034 0.1623
BAdegree [0.034] [0.040] [0.0369] [0.0352] [0.0344] [0.0390] [0.0350] [0.0380] [0.0362] [0.0365] [0.0368] [0.0342]
0.0807 0.299 0.0522 0.1953 0.0791 0.2802 0.0644 0.2258 0.0454 0.2117 0.0399* 0.1690
UniversityBA
[0.022] [0.027] [0.0224] [0.0249] [0.0223] [0.0263] [0.0228] [0.0262] [0.0225] [0.0256] [0.0227] [0.0250]
0.143 0.372 0.0993 0.2424 0.1329 0.3407 0.1216 0.2792 0.0955 0.2518 0.0822 0.1991
UniversityGrad
[0.025] [0.032] [0.0284] [0.0301] [0.0258] [0.0320] [0.0272] [0.0325] [0.0285] [0.0314] [0.0302] [0.0295]
Other/unknown

ParentalIncome
Level($50000to
$75000)
0.0951 0.087 0.1049 0.064 0.1099 0.106 0.1091 0.034 0.1042 0.053
0.1237 0.041
Extremelylow($0
$5000) [0.047] [0.095] [0.0461] [0.0935] [0.0446] [0.0932] [0.0445] [0.0897] [0.0458] [0.0913] [0.0407] [0.1000]
$5000to$25000 0.029 0.102 0.040 0.0728 0.041 0.0892 0.040 0.0670* 0.036 0.049 0.042 0.041
[0.029] [0.038] [0.0293] [0.0365] [0.0290] [0.0391] [0.0286] [0.0352] [0.0290] [0.0361] [0.0297] [0.0360]
0.008 0.0815 0.015 0.0615 0.012 0.0801 0.015 0.0601 0.015 0.0649 0.021 0.0544
$25000to$50000
[0.020] [0.023] [0.0189] [0.0203] [0.0195] [0.0224] [0.0192] [0.0218] [0.0192] [0.0214] [0.0192] [0.0203]
$75000to 0.003 0.021 0.001 0.030 0.001 0.012 0.002 0.024 0.006 0.030 0.009 0.032
$100000
[0.020] [0.023] [0.0191] [0.0199] [0.0201] [0.0221] [0.0200] [0.0218] [0.0193] [0.0208] [0.0191] [0.0196]
$100000andup 0.014 0.103 0.006 0.0893 0.014 0.0974 0.014 0.1041 0.012 0.0900 0.010 0.0842
[0.023] [0.026] [0.0226] [0.0236] [0.0232] [0.0260] [0.0231] [0.0254] [0.0225] [0.0238] [0.0225] [0.0235]
Overallgradeoflast 0.0034 0.0219 0.0019* 0.0134
yearHS(numerical)
[0.0008] [0.0007] [0.0011] [0.0012]
Mathgradeoflast 0.0010* 0.0080 0.000 0.000
yearHS(numerical) [0.0005] [0.0007] [0.0006] [0.0007]
Mainlanguagegrade 0.0013* 0.0149 0.000 0.0038
oflastyearHS [0.0007] [0.0007] [0.0008] [0.0009]
(numerical)
SciencegradeofHS 0.0030 0.0133 0.0024 0.0075
(numerical)
[0.0004] [0.0006] [0.0005] [0.0007]
Observations 8311 8204 8136 8160 7869 7642
Table3a.EffectsofStudentBackgroundonAccesstoCollegeandUniversity,Males
Baseline 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
College Univer College Univer College Univer College Univer College Univer College Univer College Univer College Univer
sity sity sity sity sity sity sity sity
Parental/guardian'sEducation(HScom
pleted)
LessthanHS 0.0691 0.0676 0.0683 0.0599 0.0662 0.0535* 0.0668 0.0523* 0.0688 0.0657 0.0675 0.0591 0.0558 0.0596 0.0645 0.0555
*
[0.029] [0.027] [0.0292 [0.0273] [0.0293 [0.0278] [0.0292 [0.0274] [0.0292 [0.0276] [0.0292 [0.0279] [0.0306 [0.0292] [0.0298 [0.0274]
] ] ] ] ] ] ]
SomePSE 0.012 0.0585* 0.0125 0.0551* 0.0098 0.0524* 0.0111 0.0519* 0.0116 0.0598* 0.0135 0.0578* 0.016 0.0544 0.0113 0.0451
[0.031] [0.033] [0.0313 [0.0321] [0.0311 [0.0308] [0.0312 [0.0308] [0.0313 [0.0334] [0.0313 [0.0326] [0.0317 [0.0335] [0.0315 [0.0314]
] ] ] ] ] ] ]
Trade/ 0.021 0.0761 0.0212 0.0767 0.0188 0.0677 0.0196 0.0713 0.0206 0.0777 0.0218 0.0769 0.0248 0.0751 0.0196 0.0774
College
[0.021] [0.022] [0.0209 [0.0214] [0.0209 [0.0205] [0.0209 [0.0207] [0.0209 [0.0217] [0.0209 [0.0212] [0.0211 [0.0217] [0.0210 [0.0213]
] ] ] ] ] ] ]
University 0.001 0.163 0.0019 0.1637 0.0011 0.1417 0.0007 0.1493 0.0001 0.1599 0.0003 0.1513 0.0024 0.1499 0.003 0.1458
belowBA [0.039] [0.046] [0.0395 [0.0453] [0.0395 [0.0447] [0.0395 [0.0441] [0.0395 [0.0461] [0.0396 [0.0447] [0.0400 [0.0449] [0.0396 [0.0433]
degree ] ] ] ] ] ] ]
University 0.0488 0.312 0.0487 0.3063 0.0484 0.2645 0.0483 0.2779 0.0506 0.3135 0.0491 0.3001 0.0466 0.3008 0.0460 0.2794
BA
[0.022] [0.030] [0.0217 [0.0293] [0.0219 [0.0282] [0.0218 [0.0283] [0.0215 [0.0297] [0.0216 [0.0289] [0.0220 [0.0292] [0.0220 [0.0286]
] ] ] ] ] ] ]
University 0.0922 0.451 0.0921 0.4450 0.0907 0.4196 0.0911 0.4249 0.0922 0.4509 0.0911 0.4405 0.0893 0.4308 0.0804 0.3960
Grad
[0.026] [0.035] [0.0264 [0.0356] [0.0268 [0.0342] [0.0266 [0.0348] [0.0264 [0.0354] [0.0264 [0.0352] [0.0266 [0.0356] [0.0273 [0.0352]
] ] ] ] ] ] ]
Other/ 0.2232 0.054 0.2244 0.0465 0.2236 0.0516 0.2234 0.0413 0.2225 0.013 0.2189 0.0231 0.2227 0.0247
unknown
[0.0135 [0.1313] [0.0135 [0.1356] [0.0138 [0.1279] [0.0130 [0.1483] [0.0138 [0.1637] [0.0150 [0.1623] [0.0136 [0.1470]
] ] ] ] ] ] ]
ParentalIncomeLevel($50000to
$75000)
Extremely 0.016 0.003 0.0154 0.0001 0.0222 0.002 0.0191 0.0049 0.0173 0.0001 0.0206 0.0057 0.0284 0.0131 0.019 0.0091
low($0
$5000)
[0.071] [0.069] [0.0703 [0.0655] [0.0716 [0.0588] [0.0705 [0.0588] [0.0714 [0.0680] [0.0722 [0.0634] [0.0620 [0.0746] [0.0720 [0.0654]
] ] ] ] ] ] ]
$5000to 0.030 0.048 0.0311 0.0511 0.0314 0.0431 0.0325 0.0489 0.0296 0.045 0.0308 0.0418 0.0315 0.0395 0.0353 0.041
$25000
[0.035] [0.037] [0.0353 [0.0375] [0.0351 [0.0359] [0.0356 [0.0365] [0.0348 [0.0377] [0.0353 [0.0375] [0.0356 [0.0382] [0.0355 [0.0379]
] ] ] ] ] ] ]
$25000to 0.023 0.013 0.022 0.0093 0.0213 0.0044 0.0209 0.0044 0.022 0.0119 0.0204 0.0061 0.0186 0.0069 0.0213 0.0021
$50000
[0.020] [0.021] [0.0199 [0.0208] [0.0198 [0.0204] [0.0198 [0.0202] [0.0199 [0.0213] [0.0198 [0.0207] [0.0201 [0.0212] [0.0198 [0.0202]
] ] ] ] ] ] ]
$75000to 0.017 0.0401* 0.0154 0.0456 0.0166 0.0273 0.0153 0.0377* 0.0151 0.0416* 0.0142 0.0422* 0.0093 0.0485 0.0159 0.0382*
$100000
[0.020] [0.023] [0.0197 [0.0223] [0.0197 [0.0216] [0.0196 [0.0214] [0.0197 [0.0230] [0.0197 [0.0223] [0.0199 [0.0227] [0.0197 [0.0219]
] ] ] ] ] ] ]
$100000and 0.019 0.0601 0.0198 0.0583 0.0187 0.0459* 0.0197 0.0508 0.02 0.0570 0.0191 0.0507 0.0169 0.0527 0.0255 0.0431*
up
[0.023] [0.026] [0.0235 [0.0256] [0.0235 [0.0250] [0.0235 [0.0247] [0.0235 [0.0265] [0.0234 [0.0257] [0.0237 [0.0259] [0.0236 [0.0252]
] ] ] ] ] ] ]
(continued)
Table3acontinued
Baseline 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
HSEngagements
Academic 0.0018 0.0670
identification [0.007 [0.0073]
2]
Academic 0.0074 0.1055
participation [0.007 [0.0076]
3]
Academic 0.0054 0.1048
engagement [0.007 [0.0073]
2]
Socialen 0.006 0.0249
gagement [0.006 [0.0077]
7]
Overallen 9E04 0.0729
gagement [0.007 [0.0075]
0]
Selfperception:
Selfesteem 0.0071 0.0647
[0.007 [0.0077]
0]
Selfefficacy 0.007 0.1081
[0.006 [0.0069]
8]
Selfmastery
SocialSupport:
Parents'Behav
iours:
Monitoring
behaviour
Nurturance
behaviour
Inconsistent
discipline
(Rejection
oriented
behaviour)
ReadingAbility:
Observations 7852 7850 7850 7850 7846 7846 7597 7749

Table3acontinued
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

(HScompleted)
LessthanHS 0.0535* 0.0614 0.0703 0.0651 0.0659 0.0643 0.0686 0.0652 0.0677 0.0654 0.0620 0.0359 0.0597 0.0319 0.045 0.0317
[0.0310] [0.0295] [0.0293] [0.0278] [0.0293] [0.0278] [0.0292] [0.0278] [0.0292] [0.0276] [0.0296] [0.0282] [0.0297] [0.0273] [0.0312] [0.0281]
SomePSE 0.0137 0.0525 0.014 0.0578* 0.0119 0.0595* 0.0099 0.0598* 0.0104 0.0585* 0.0136 0.0237 0.0125 0.0211 0.0121 0.0209
[0.0317] [0.0337] [0.0317] [0.0333] [0.0313] [0.0334] [0.0312] [0.0333] [0.0313] [0.0329] [0.0311] [0.0287] [0.0310] [0.0272] [0.0315] [0.0286]
Trade/
College 0.0238 0.0739 0.0181 0.0776 0.0215 0.0733 0.0214 0.0761 0.0213 0.0790 0.0215 0.0450 0.0201 0.0419 0.021 0.0465
[0.0212] [0.0220] [0.0209] [0.0217] [0.0209] [0.0215] [0.0209] [0.0216] [0.0209] [0.0216] [0.0206] [0.0192] [0.0205] [0.0184] [0.0209] [0.0191]
University
belowBA
degree 0.0004 0.1520 0.0044 0.1570 0.0014 0.1548 0.0021 0.1662 0.0022 0.1615 0.0054 0.0916 0.0049 0.0895 0.005 0.0914
[0.0399] [0.0447] [0.0395] [0.0453] [0.0397] [0.0458] [0.0394] [0.0463] [0.0395] [0.0459] [0.0398] [0.0386] [0.0393] [0.0372] [0.0398] [0.0377]
University
BA 0.0494 0.3062 0.0510 0.3089 0.0491 0.3091 0.0490 0.3141 0.0492 0.3083 0.0373* 0.2214 0.0405* 0.2008 0.0377* 0.1941
[0.0220] [0.0297] [0.0217] [0.0296] [0.0217] [0.0296] [0.0216] [0.0297] [0.0217] [0.0295] [0.0217] [0.0258] [0.0214] [0.0246] [0.0220] [0.0251]
University 0.0910 0.0950 0.0923 0.0931 0.0918
Grad 0.4345 0.4502 0.4509 0.4554 0.4422 0.0595 0.2899 0.0563* 0.2799 0.0546* 0.2700
[0.0266] [0.0356] [0.0264] [0.0355] [0.0262] [0.0349] [0.0262] [0.0348] [0.0266] [0.0349] [0.0287] [0.0321] [0.0290] [0.0314] [0.0293] [0.0324]
Other/ 0.2196 0.2251 0.2238 0.2233 0.2225 0.2227 0.2238 0.2199
unknown 0.0241 0.0744 0.0632 0.0551 0.0283 0.0272 0.029 0.0475
[0.0151] [0.1629] [0.0129] [0.1201] [0.0129] [0.1297] [0.0132] [0.1368] [0.0141] [0.1575] [0.0140] [0.1790] [0.0133] [0.1636] [0.0147] [0.1687]
ParentalIncomeLevel
($50000to$75000)
Extremely 0.0264 0.0044 0.0159 0.0013 0.0213 0.0124 0.0159 0.0014 0.019 0.0048 0.0095 0.0117 0.0166 0.0005 0.0175 0.0182
low($0
$5000) [0.0618] [0.0728] [0.0721] [0.0680] [0.0705] [0.0698] [0.0710] [0.0693] [0.0708] [0.0663] [0.0687] [0.0624] [0.0686] [0.0539] [0.0619] [0.0572]
$5000to 0.0313 0.0403 0.0305 0.049 0.0333 0.0524 0.0289 0.046 0.0282 0.0483 0.0234 0.0036 0.0246 0.0093 0.0313 0.0116
$25000 [0.0355] [0.0384] [0.0349] [0.0374] [0.0347] [0.0368] [0.0344] [0.0372] [0.0344] [0.0370] [0.0335] [0.0351] [0.0343] [0.0337] [0.0353] [0.0346]
$25000to 0.0207 0.0048 0.0226 0.0133 0.0224 0.0153 0.0231 0.0156 0.0226 0.0135 0.0196 0.0066 0.0173 0.0126 0.0178 0.0197
$50000 [0.0203] [0.0216] [0.0200] [0.0210] [0.0198] [0.0213] [0.0199] [0.0214] [0.0199] [0.0212] [0.0196] [0.0193] [0.0195] [0.0186] [0.0199] [0.0192]
$75000to 0.0092 0.0513 0.0143 0.0439* 0.0157 0.0393* 0.0165 0.0387* 0.0161 0.0438* 0.0173 0.0356* 0.013 0.0337* 0.0079 0.0369*
$100000 [0.0199] [0.0232] [0.0197] [0.0229] [0.0197] [0.0229] [0.0198] [0.0230] [0.0197] [0.0228] [0.0194] [0.0203] [0.0192] [0.0193] [0.0193] [0.0197]
$100000and 0.0172 0.0547 0.0216 0.0560 0.019 0.0601 0.0193 0.0581 0.0182 0.0625 0.0214 0.0446* 0.0208 0.0408* 0.0245 0.0403*
up [0.0237] [0.0262] [0.0236] [0.0261] [0.0234] [0.0261] [0.0235] [0.0264] [0.0234] [0.0261] [0.0229] [0.0233] [0.0228] [0.0225] [0.0234] [0.0231]
Table3acontinued
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
HSEngagements
Academic
0.0006 0.0252 0.0014 0.0113
identifica
tion [0.0081] [0.0074] [0.0087] [0.0081]
Academic
0.0064 0.0681 0.0071 0.0677
participation
[0.0079] [0.0078] [0.0082] [0.0082]
Academic
engagement
Socialen
0.0098 0.006 0.0160 0.0054
gagement
[0.0070] [0.0070] [0.0082] [0.0082]
Overallen
gagement
Selfperception:
Selfesteem
0.0099 0.0081
[0.0107] [0.0105]
[0.0081] [0.0077]
Selfmastery 0.0085 0.0513 0.011 0.001
[0.0071] [0.0074] [0.0097] [0.0092]
SocialSupport: 0.0029 0.0459 0.0036 0.0151*
[0.0071] [0.0078] [0.0090] [0.0088]
Parents'
Behaviours:
Monitoring 0.0149* 0.0302 0.0130* 0.0091
behaviour [0.0077] [0.0084] [0.0079] [0.0081]
Nurturance 0.001 0.0223 0.0074 0.0015
behaviour [0.0071] [0.0079] [0.0076] [0.0076]
Inconsistent 0.0067 0.0357 0.0075 0.0128*
discipline [0.0071] [0.0075] [0.0075] [0.0074]
(Rejection
oriented
behaviour)
ReadingAbility: 0.0002 0.0018 0.0002 0.0017 0.0002 0.0015
[0.0001] [0.0001] [0.0001] [0.0001] [0.0001] [0.0001]
Observations 7569 7774 7846 7850 7844 7838 7838 7426
Table3b:EffectsofStudentBackgroundonAccesstoCollegeandUniversity,Females
Baseline 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Parental/guardian'sEducation(HScom
pleted)
LessthanHS 0.0353 0.118 0.0346 0.1142 0.0333 0.1091 0.0334 0.1090 0.0335 0.1159 0.0334 0.1090 0.036 0.1036 0.0368 0.1028
[0.029] [0.032] [0.0290] [0.0321] [0.0288] [0.0323] [0.0291] [0.0326] [0.0289] [0.0318] [0.0289] [0.0323] [0.0282] [0.0323] [0.0294] [0.0337]
SomePSE 0.0409 0.0454 0.0398 0.0444 0.0439 0.0328 0.0406 0.0384 0.041 0.0459 0.0398 0.044 0.0402 0.0446 0.0381 0.0374
[0.033] [0.035] [0.0330] [0.0347] [0.0325] [0.0328] [0.0327] [0.0332] [0.0330] [0.0351] [0.0328] [0.0340] [0.0328] [0.0350] [0.0326] [0.0340]
Trade/
0.0103 0.0618
College 0.0109 0.0630 0.0047 0.0448* 0.0084 0.0545 0.0104 0.0626 0.0106 0.0610 0.009 0.0560 0.0094 0.0494
[0.020] [0.024] [0.0203] [0.0237] [0.0200] [0.0231] [0.0201] [0.0232] [0.0203] [0.0239] [0.0202] [0.0235] [0.0204] [0.0241] [0.0202] [0.0233]
University 0.0811 0.302 0.0773 0.2925 0.0632* 0.2542 0.0679* 0.2665 0.0815 0.3032 0.0790 0.2929 0.0839 0.2903 0.0714 0.2728
belowBA [0.034] [0.040] [0.0346] [0.0391] [0.0351] [0.0404] [0.0350] [0.0391] [0.0340] [0.0394] [0.0341] [0.0389] [0.0341] [0.0407] [0.0349] [0.0392]
degree
University 0.0807 0.0780 0.0632 0.0687 0.0811 0.0772 0.0729 0.0750
0.299
BA 0.2884 0.2496 0.2621 0.2968 0.2819 0.2806 0.2673
[0.022] [0.027] [0.0225] [0.0268] [0.0225] [0.0264] [0.0226] [0.0266] [0.0224] [0.0267] [0.0225] [0.0265] [0.0229] [0.0271] [0.0222] [0.0266]
University 0.1390 0.1226 0.1279 0.1428 0.1380 0.1424 0.1334
0.143 0.372
Grad 0.3568 0.3107 0.3226 0.3708 0.3511 0.3535 0.3208
[0.025] [0.032] [0.0250] [0.0324] [0.0263] [0.0325] [0.0262] [0.0328] [0.0245] [0.0318] [0.0251] [0.0322] [0.0240] [0.0321] [0.0254] [0.0321]
Other/

unknown 0.1217 0.2256 0.1153 0.1454 0.116 0.1964* 0.126 0.2228 0.1233 0.2315 0.1023 0.2421 0.1193 0.1561
[0.1290] [0.0965] [0.1273] [0.1346] [0.1289] [0.1111] [0.1273] [0.1000] [0.1274] [0.0927] [0.1350] [0.0915] [0.1283] [0.1336]
ParentalIncomeLevel($50000to
$75000)
Extremely
low($0 0.0951 0.087
$5000) 0.0969 0.0746 0.1028 0.0505 0.1002 0.0565 0.0923* 0.0741 0.0975 0.0513 0.0928* 0.0817 0.1005 0.0694
[0.047] [0.095] [0.0471] [0.0931] [0.0451] [0.0958] [0.0460] [0.0950] [0.0476] [0.0955] [0.0467] [0.0951] [0.0476] [0.0989] [0.0473] [0.0933]
$5000to
0.0288 0.102
$25000 0.0268 0.1150 0.0277 0.1043 0.0249 0.1173 0.0283 0.0986 0.0279 0.1031 0.0219 0.0962 0.0318 0.0946
[0.029] [0.038] [0.0295] [0.0368] [0.0293] [0.0367] [0.0295] [0.0360] [0.0294] [0.0376] [0.0294] [0.0371] [0.0301] [0.0374] [0.0294] [0.0376]
$25000to
0.00816 0.0815
$50000 0.0068 0.0891 0.0093 0.0788 0.0064 0.0885 0.0077 0.0787 0.0087 0.0784 0.0126 0.0678 0.0137 0.0719
[0.020] [0.023] [0.0195] [0.0225] [0.0193] [0.0225] [0.0194] [0.0222] [0.0195] [0.0228] [0.0195] [0.0224] [0.0194] [0.0228] [0.0193] [0.0222]
$75000to
0.00336 0.0205
$100000 0.004 0.0195 0.0031 0.0185 0.0037 0.0185 0.0037 0.0204 0.0036 0.0195 0.0007 0.0262 0.0008 0.0274
[0.020] [0.023] [0.0202] [0.0222] [0.0200] [0.0218] [0.0200] [0.0218] [0.0202] [0.0226] [0.0202] [0.0223] [0.0202] [0.0225] [0.0200] [0.0217]
$100000and
0.0143 0.103
up 0.0154 0.1038 0.0117 0.0936 0.0147 0.0989 0.0142 0.1057 0.0166 0.1070 0.0177 0.1094 0.0178 0.1083
[0.023] [0.026] [0.0231] [0.0255] [0.0230] [0.0249] [0.0229] [0.0250] [0.0233] [0.0257] [0.0230] [0.0253] [0.0234] [0.0258] [0.0230] [0.0253]
(continued)
Table3bcontinued
Baseline 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
HSEngagements
Academic 0.004 0.0643
identification [0.0076] [0.0082]
Academic 0.0163
participation 0.1389
[0.0082] [0.0089]
Academic 0.007 0.1183
engagement [0.0079] [0.0084]
Socialen 0.0114* 0.0229
gagement [0.0067] [0.0079]
Overallen 0.0065 0.0756
gagement [0.0071] [0.0080]
Selfperception:
Selfesteem 0.0007 0.0639
[0.0070] [0.0081]
[0.0072] [0.0076]
Selfmastery
SocialSupport:
Parents'Behav
iours:
Monitoring
behaviour
Nurturance
behaviour
Inconsistent
discipline
(Rejection
oriented
behaviour)
ReadingAbility:
Observations 8311 8311 8309 8309 8311 8309 8171 8252

Table3bcontinued
Baseline 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Univer Univer Univer Univer Univer Univer Univer Univer
College College College College College College College College
(HScompleted)
LessthanHS 0.0346 0.1087 0.0383 0.1187 0.0355 0.1161 0.0359 0.1174 0.0344 0.1194 0.0334 0.0732 0.0323 0.0667 0.0365 0.0602*
[0.0284] [0.0321] [0.0289] [0.0321] [0.0289] [0.0318] [0.0289] [0.0318] [0.0288] [0.0319] [0.0292] [0.0324] [0.0287] [0.0322] [0.0285] [0.0331]
SomePSE 0.0391 0.0485 0.0387 0.0468 0.0412 0.0448 0.0406 0.0463 0.0404 0.0427 0.0498 0.0123 0.0518 0.0066 0.0472 0.0137
[0.0329] [0.0353] [0.0331] [0.0357] [0.0332] [0.0353] [0.0330] [0.0354] [0.0330] [0.0353] [0.0319] [0.0304] [0.0316] [0.0291] [0.0318] [0.0297]
Trade/
College 0.0087 0.0532 0.0131 0.0613 0.0117 0.0624 0.0105 0.0626 0.0103 0.0599 0.0016 0.0226 0.0041 0.0166 0.0017 0.0145
[0.0204] [0.0241] [0.0203] [0.0241] [0.0203] [0.0240] [0.0203] [0.0240] [0.0203] [0.0240] [0.0198] [0.0212] [0.0195] [0.0207] [0.0197] [0.0210]
University
belowBA 0.0874
degree 0.0831 0.2911 0.3028 0.0808 0.3012 0.0820 0.3029 0.0801 0.2950 0.0276 0.1653 0.0156 0.1402 0.0259 0.1420
[0.0342] [0.0402] [0.0339] [0.0397] [0.0342] [0.0396] [0.0340] [0.0398] [0.0342] [0.0396] [0.0370] [0.0371] [0.0377] [0.0369] [0.0381] [0.0367]
University 0.0736 0.0849 0.0793 0.0808 0.0790
BA 0.2856 0.2967 0.2951 0.2990 0.2897 0.0380* 0.1705 0.0287 0.1458 0.0291 0.1422
[0.0229] [0.0271] [0.0224] [0.0270] [0.0225] [0.0268] [0.0224] [0.0268] [0.0226] [0.0269] [0.0226] [0.0252] [0.0225] [0.0246] [0.0229] [0.0251]
University 0.1437 0.1524 0.1445 0.1432 0.1410 0.0942 0.0820 0.0954
Grad 0.3624 0.3738 0.3756 0.3731 0.3617 0.2166 0.1788 0.1795
[0.0238] [0.0318] [0.0229] [0.0315] [0.0244] [0.0318] [0.0245] [0.0319] [0.0248] [0.0322] [0.0280] [0.0304] [0.0287] [0.0300] [0.0278] [0.0302]
Other/
unknown 0.0998 0.2445 0.1242 0.032 0.1169 0.2089* 0.1168 0.2050* 0.1277 0.2467 0.1241 0.087 0.1349 0.0837 0.1213 0.0154
[0.1341] [0.0865] [0.1802] [0.2022] [0.1316] [0.1085] [0.1313] [0.1106] [0.1309] [0.0874] [0.1202] [0.1304] [0.1131] [0.1294] [0.1635] [0.1348]
ParentalIncomeLevel
($50000to$75000)
Extremely 0.1149 0.1157
low($0 0.0881* 0.0697 0.0924* 0.0861 0.0931 0.0808 0.0957 0.0867 0.0961 0.0675 0.0082 0.03 0.1106 0.037
$5000) [0.0495] [0.0989] [0.0482] [0.0953] [0.0475] [0.0990] [0.0467] [0.0953] [0.0464] [0.0956] [0.0410] [0.0923] [0.0405] [0.0988] [0.0437] [0.1009]
$5000to 0.0215 0.0965 0.0256 0.0980 0.0288 0.1021 0.0283 0.1022 0.0284 0.1042 0.0424 0.0355 0.0404 0.0454 0.0291 0.046
$25000 [0.0301] [0.0378] [0.0299] [0.0376] [0.0294] [0.0374] [0.0294] [0.0376] [0.0294] [0.0372] [0.0281] [0.0344] [0.0279] [0.0332] [0.0293] [0.0335]
$25000to 0.0098 0.0720 0.0137 0.0779 0.0086 0.0799 0.0078 0.0820 0.0078 0.0806 0.0158 0.0465 0.0145 0.0505 0.02 0.0451
$50000 [0.0195] [0.0229] [0.0194] [0.0230] [0.0195] [0.0230] [0.0195] [0.0230] [0.0195] [0.0229] [0.0189] [0.0197] [0.0186] [0.0194] [0.0188] [0.0198]
$75000to 0.0007 0.0233 0.0031 0.0232 0.0014 0.0227 0.0032 0.0207 0.0023 0.0222 0.0017 0.0351* 0.0007 0.0323 0.0061 0.0386*
$100000 [0.0202] [0.0225] [0.0202] [0.0227] [0.0202] [0.0225] [0.0202] [0.0226] [0.0202] [0.0225] [0.0191] [0.0202] [0.0189] [0.0198] [0.0189] [0.0198]
$100000and 0.0166 0.1025 0.0137 0.1009 0.0153 0.1054 0.0139 0.1027 0.0149 0.1045 0.0096 0.0924 0.0074 0.0880 0.0129 0.0933
up [0.0233] [0.0258] [0.0233] [0.0259] [0.0233] [0.0257] [0.0233] [0.0258] [0.0233] [0.0257] [0.0224] [0.0237] [0.0221] [0.0232] [0.0223] [0.0233]
Table3bcontinued
Baseline 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
HSEngagements
Academic
identifica
tion
Academic
participation
Academic
engagement
Socialen
gagement
Overallen
gagement
Selfperception:
Selfesteem
0.0014 0.0157
[0.0098] [0.0104]
Selfefficacy
0.0101 0.0466
[0.0084] [0.0087]
Selfmastery 0.0038 0.0548
0.0102 0.0025
[0.0073] [0.0083]
[0.0095] [0.0102]
SocialSupport: 0.0170 0.0126
0.0189 0.0296
[0.0070] [0.0085]
[0.0082] [0.0091]
Parents'Behav
iours:
Monitoring 0.0032 0.0383
0.0038 0.0235
behaviour [0.0080] [0.0096]
[0.0079] [0.0088]
Nurturance 0.0043 0.0047
0.0054 0.0096
behaviour [0.0073] [0.0083]
[0.0076] [0.0082]
Inconsistent 0.0044 0.0355
0.0047 0.0161
discipline [0.0068] [0.0076]
(Rejection
oriented
behaviour)
[0.0069] [0.0072]
ReadingAbility: 0.0003 0.0023 0.0003 0.0021 0.0003 0.0019
[0.0001] [0.0001] [0.0001] [0.0001] [0.0001] [0.0001]
Observations 8151 8254 8306 8306 8306 8304 8302 8049
TableA1.SampleSelection
Male Female
% of obs. in % of lost in % of obs. in % of lost in
the starting each stage # of obs. the starting each stage # of obs.
left left
sample of exclusion sample of exclusion
Starting sample (YITS-A participants over all 3 cycles) 10226 10521
QC, Territories or Outside Canada
PS institution in QC 13.79 17.19
Last year of high school in QC 23.36 22.53
HS attended at cycle1 is in QC 23.56 22.70
Ever resident in QC 23.74 22.99
Ever resident, taken HS or PSE in QC 24.13 23.72
PS institution in Territories or outside Canada 0.66 0.89
Last year of high school in Territories or outside Canada 0.39 0.57
Ever resident in Territories or outside Canada 0.24 0.52
Any of the above 25.00 25.00 8415 25.03 25.03 8713
HS continuer or status unknown 6.54 6.05 7961 4.01 3.39 8458
Non-Canadian citizen / immigrant status unknown 0.75 0.70 7931 0.99 0.93 8422
Missing values
Unknown visible minority status 0.34 0.32 7909 0.40 0.51 8395
PSE
Unknown level of PSE program 0.49 0.93
Unknown type of PSE institution 0.19 0.48
Unknown PSE 0.64 0.69 7852 1.15 1.03 8311
Missing values in scale variables
HS Engagement
Academic identification -
Academic participation - -
Academic engagement - -
Social engagement -
Overall engagement - -
Self-perception
Self-esteem 3.47 2.20
Self-efficacy 1.32 0.77
Self-mastery 3.96 2.40
Social Support 1.14 0.89
Parents' Behaviour
Monitoring behaviour - -
Nurturance behaviour - -
Inconsistent discipline (Rejection-oriented behaviour) - -
Reading Ability 0.14 0.19
Missing value of any scale variable 5.64 4.91 7426 3.76 3.70 8049
Missing values in last year HS grades
Overall grade in last year HS 2.77 1.97
Math grade in last year HS 2.87 2.42
Main language grade in last year HS 2.80 2.10
Science grade in HS at cycle 1 8.79 6.39
Missing value of any HS grade 12.82 9.42 6685 9.46 6.62 7486
TableA2.DistributionofVariousHighSchoolGrades,MalesandFemales
Categorical Grades (%)

90% to 80% to 70% to 60% to 55% to 50% to Less Total
100% 89% 79% 69% 59% 54% than Mean of Nu-
50% merical Grades
Males
HS Overall Grade 5.9 26.2 41.8 21.4 3.3 0.9 0.6 100.0 75.58
HS Math Grade 9.6 22.2 30.3 25.9 7.3 4.1 0.6 100.0 73.99
HS Main Language Grade 5.8 27.7 36.2 23.1 4.4 2.5 0.2 100.0 75.14
HS Science Grade 11.4 25.7 26.9 19.2 8.0 5.2 3.5 100.0 73.54
Females
HS Overall Grade 9.0 38.6 37.9 12.1 1.7 0.5 0.3 100.0 78.90
HS Math Grade 10.3 23.7 31.0 22.7 6.0 5.8 0.6 100.0 74.46
HS Main Language Grade 13.3 39.4 31.4 13.2 1.6 1.1 0.1 100.0 79.71
HS Science Grade 13.3 30.5 26.8 16.3 6.2 4.2 2.6 100.0 75.67
Note: Tocalculatemeans,catergoricalgradesareconvertedtonumericalgradesasfollows:90%to100%= 95; 80% to89%= 85; 70% to
79%=75;60%to69%=65;55%to59%=57;50%to54%=52;andlessthan50%=25.
TableA3.ExplanationofScaleVariables
AllofthevariousscalesusedintheYITS15yearoldcohort,andintheYITS1820yearoldcohortaremodeledafterthe
LikertScale(Likert,1932).ScoresreleasedforYITSscaleswerebasedonanitemresponsetheory(IRT)approach.TheIRT
scoresandtheirrespectivestandarderrorswereestimatedusingweightedmaximumlikelihood(seeWarm,1989)andap
plyingageneralizedpartialcreditmodel.Thegeneralizedpartialcreditmodelisanextensionofthetwoparameterlogistic
distributiontopolytomous(categorical)data(Muraki,1997).ForestimatingIRTscores,thepopulationdistributionofthe
scoreswasspecifiedtohaveameanofzeroandastandarddeviationofone.Oncestandardized,therespondentsesti
matedscore,inthiscase,canbeinterpretedasthenumberofstandarddeviationsofthepopulationofinterestabove(if
positive)orbelow(ifnegative)themean.
HighSchoolEngagementScale
Overallschoolengagement
Measuresarespondentsoverallengagementforthestudentspresentschoolyear,focusinguponexaminingbehavioural
factors.
RelatedQuestions:Derivedbyasimpleaverageofthevariablesacademicengagementandsocialengagement.
Socialengagement
Definedastheidentificationwithandbehaviouralinvolvementinthesocialaspectsofschool(theschoolsociallife).Itin
volvesbothafeelingofbelongingtotheschoolssocialenvironmentandasenseoffitbetweentheindividualandthe
school.Thisconnectionreflectstheextenttowhichstudentsfeelpersonallyaccepted,respected,includedandsupported
byothersintheschoolssocialenvironment.
RelatedQuestions
YSA9K PeopleatschoolareinterestedinwhatIhavetosay;
YSA9O IhavefriendsatschoolwhomIcantalktoaboutpersonalthings;
YSA9P Ihavefriendsatschoolwhocanhelpmewithschoolwork,ifneeded;
ST31Q01 MyschoolisaplacewhereIfeellikeanoutsider;
ST31Q02 MyschoolisaplacewhereImakefriendseasily;
ST31Q03 MyschoolisaplacewhereIfeellikeIbelong;
ST31Q04 MyschoolisaplacewhereIfeelawkwardandoutofplace;
ST31Q05 Myschoolisaplacewhereotherstudentsseemtolikeme;
ST31Q06 MyschoolisaplacewhereIfeellonely.
Academicengagement
Definedastheidentificationwithandbehaviouralinvolvement(participation)intheacademicaspectsofschool.Academic
aspectsofschoolincludethestudentsdealingswithteachers,curricula,andtheschoolgovernance.
RelatedQuestions:Derivedbyasimpleaverageofthevariablesacademicparticipationandacademicidentification.
Academicparticipation
Focusingonthefirstthreelevelsoftaxonomytoacademicparticipation:theacquiescencetotheneedtoattendschool,
tobepreparedandtorespondtodirectionsandquestions;studentsdemonstratinginitiativetakingbehaviours;and
participationinthesocial,extracurricular,andathleticaspectsofschoollifeinadditiontoorasasubstituteforextensive
participationinacademicwork.
RelatedQuestions:
YSA6 hoursonhomeworkoutsideofclassduringfreeperiodsandathome;
YSA7 numberoftimeIcutorskippedaclasswithoutpermission;
YSA8B Icompletedmyassignments;
ST32Q01 Icompletedhomeworkontime;
ST33Q01ST33Q02 Onaverage,timespenteachweekonhomeworkandstudyinthesesubjectareas:testlanguage,
ST33Q03 mathematicsandscience,respectively.
HighSchoolEngagementScale:AcademicEngagement(continued)
Academicparticipation
Measuresarespondentsacademicidentificationwithhighschool,thefocusofattentionisontwocomponentsofiden
tification,valuingandbelonging.Astudentwhofailstoidentifywithschoolisexpectedtohavealackofvaluingforthe
schoolandalackoffeelingsofbelongingtotheschool.
RelatedQuestions:
YSA8I Igetalongwellwithteachers;
YSA8J IaminterestedinwhatIamlearninginclass;
YSA9E Schoolisoneofthemostimportantthingsinmylife;
YSA9F Manyofthethingswelearninclassareuseless;
YSA9G Mostofmyteachersdontreallycareaboutme
YSA9H Mostofthetime,Iwouldliketobeanyplaceotherthaninschool;
YSA9J MostofwhatIlearninschoolwillbeusefulwhenIgetajob;
YSA9L Schoolisoftenawasteoftime;
YSA9M Schoolismoreimportantthanmostpeoplethink;
YSA9N Mostofmyteachersdoagoodjobofteaching;
ST30Q03 MostofmyteachersreallylistentowhatIhavetosay;
ST30Q04 IfIneedextrahelp,Iwillreceiveitfrommyteachers;
ST30Q05 Mostofmyteacherstreatmefairly;
ST31Q07 MyschoolisaplacewhereIdonotwanttogo;
ST32Q06 Iamgivinginterestinghomework.
Selfperception
Selfesteem
TheselfesteemscalethatwaschosenforYITSisMorrisRosenbergs22selfesteemscale(RSE)(Rosenberg,1965,p.17).Ro
senbergdefinesselfesteemasfavourableorunfavourableattitudestowardsselfandproposesaseriesoftenquestionsto
measureit.WithinthecontextofYITS,RSEattemptstomeasureadolescentsglobalfeelingsofselfworthorselfacceptance.
RelatedQuestions
YSI1A IfeelIamapersonofworth,atleastonanequalbasiswithothers;
YSI1B IfeelthatIhaveanumberofgoodqualities;
YSI1C Allinall,ItendtofeelthatIamafailure;
YSI1D Iamabletodothingsaswellasmostotherpeople;
YSI1E IfeelIdonothavemuchtobeproudof;
YSI1F Ihaveapositiveattitudetowardmyself;
YSI1G Onthewhole,Iamsatisfiedwithmyself;
YSI1H IwishIcouldlikemyselfmore;
YSI1I Icertainlyfeeluselessattimes;
YSI1J AttimesIthinkIamnogoodatall.
Selfefficacy
Definesacademicselfefficacyasthestudentscompetenceandconfidenceinperformanceofclassworkasperceivedby
thestudent.Thisconceptshouldbedistinguishedfromglobalselfefficacyormasterywhichisthebeliefthatonehascon
troloveronesowndestiny.
RelatedQuestions
YSA8K IamcertainIcanunderstandthemostdifficultmaterialpresentedintexts;
YSA8L IamconfidentIcanunderstandthemostcomplexmaterialpresentedbyteacher;
YSA8M IamconfidentIcandoanexcellentjobonassignmentsandtests;
YSA8N IamcertainIcanmastertheskillsbeingtaught
Selfperception(continued)
Selfmastery
ThepowerlessnessscalechosenbyYITSisbasedupontheworkofPearlinandSchooler(1978).Thisscale,referredtoasthe
Masteryscale25,assessesafeelingofpowerlessnesswithoutreferencetoconcretelifesituations.Masterycanbedefined
asameasurethatassessestheextenttowhichoneregardsoneslifechancesasbeingunderonesowncontrolincontrast
tobeingfatalisticallyruled(PearlinandSchooler,1978).Hence,ifonescoreshighonthemasteryscale,onedoesnotfeel
powerless.
RelatedQuestions
YSI2A SometimesIfeelImbeingpushedaroundinlife;
YSI2B Whathappenstomeinthefuturemostlydependsonme;
YSI2C ThereisreallynowayIcansolvesomeoftheproblemsIhave;
YSI2D ThereislittleIcandotochangemanyoftheimportantthingsinmylife;
YSI2E Ioftenfeelhelplessindealingwiththeproblemsoflife;
YSI2F Ihavelittlecontroloverthethingshappentome;
YSI2G IcandojustaboutanythingIreallysetmymindto.
Socialsupport
Measurestheavailabilityofsocialsupports,viafriends,familyandothersourcesfortheyouth.Threeaspectsareincluded:
reliablealliance(theassurancethatotherscanbecounteduponforpracticalhelp),attachment(emotionalcloseness)and
guidance(adviceorinformation).Theseaspectsaremostdirectlyrelatedtoproblemsolvingwithinthecontextofstress.
Twoitemswereproposedtomeasureeachoftheseaspectsforatotalofsixitems.
RelatedQuestions
YSD1A Ifsomethingwentwrong,noonewouldhelpme;
YSD1B Ihavefamilyandfriendswhohelpmefeelsafe,secureandhappy;
YSD1C ThereissomeoneItrustwhomIwouldturntoforadviceifIwerehavingproblems;
YSD1D ThereisnooneIfeelcomfortabletalkingaboutproblemswith;
YSD1E ThereisnooneIfeelcloseto;
YSD1F TherearepeopleIcancountonintimesoftrouble
Parentsbehaviours
Parentswhoaresupportiveoftheiryouthseducation,whoareinvolvedintheiryouthsschoolandwhohaveafirmbut
responsiveparentingstylehaveapositiveinfluenceontheiryouthsachievementandeducationalattainment.Theparent
ingpracticesscalesaredesignedtomeasurethreefacetsofparenting:nurturance,inconsistentrejectionorienteddiscipline
(rejection)andmonitoring.Anoverallparentingscalewasnotformedfromthethreesubscales.
Monitoringbehaviour
Measuresparentsmonitoringbehaviour.Amonitoringparentisdefinedasonewhobelievesthatheorsheisknowledge
ableabouthisorherchild'sactivities,whereaboutsandfriends.
RelatedQuestions
PB17A Knowwherechildgoesatnight;
PB17D Knowwhatchildisdoingwhenhe/shegoesout;
PB17G Knowwhochildspendstimewithwhenhe/shegoesout.
Nurturancebehaviour
Measuresparentsnurturingbehaviours.Nurturancerepresentschildcenteredeffectiveparentingpracticessuchasnurtur
ance,involvement,andpositivereinforcement.
RelatedQuestions
PB17C Praisechild;
PB17F Listentochildsideasandoptions;
PB17J Makesurechildknowsthattheyareappreciated;
PB17M Speakofgoodthingsthosechildrendoes;
PB17O Seemproudofthethingschilddoes.
Parentsbehaviours(continued)
Inconsistentdiscipline(Rejectionorientedbehaviour)
RelatedQuestions
PB17B Soonforgetarulethattheyhavemade;
PB17E Nagchildaboutlittlethings;
PB17H Keeprulesonlywhenitsuitsthemselves;
PB17I Getangryandyellatchild;
PB17L Threatenpunishmentmoreoftenthanusingit;
PB17N Enforceordonotenforcerulesdependingontheirmood
Studentsperformancescoreinreading
Weightedlikelihoodestimateinreadingability,whichisprovidedforallstudentswhoansweredatleastonereadingques
tion.Itwastransformedtoascalewithameanof500andastandarddeviationof100byusingthedatafortheparticipat
ingOECDcountriesonly(excepttheNetherlands).
TableA4:SummaryStatistics,ScaleVariables,MalesandFemales
Males Females
Min. Max Mean S.D. Min. Max Mean S.D.
HS Engagement
Academic identification -4.57 4.35 -0.08 0.98 -5.04 3.97 0.12 0.96
Academic participation -4.84 2.83 -0.09 1.00 -4.84 2.85 0.28 0.90
Academic engagement -5.37 3.66 -0.10 0.99 -4.74 3.62 0.24 0.93
Social engagement -3.84 2.74 -0.13 1.03 -3.84 2.74 0.06 1.01
Overall engagement -5.55 3.22 -0.14 0.99 -4.14 3.60 0.17 0.96
Self-perception
Self-esteem -3.52 2.86 0.03 1.00 -3.67 2.04 -0.07 0.96
Self-efficacy -2.55 2.21 0.09 1.03 -2.55 2.31 -0.14 0.98
Self-mastery -3.71 2.92 0.00 0.99 -3.70 2.89 -0.07 0.95
Social Support -3.11 1.77 -0.26 0.99 -2.85 1.77 0.20 0.95
Parents' Behaviour
Monitoring behaviour -7.96 1.26 0.03 0.94 -7.96 1.26 0.11 0.84
Nurturance behaviour -5.08 1.78 -0.04 1.01 -5.47 1.78 0.09 0.98
Inconsistent discipline -3.93 3.54 0.11 0.96 -3.93 4.56 0.00 0.98
Reading Ability 166.01 887.31 519.29 97.04 120.56 909.52 550.01 88.54

MESA Finnie Mueller PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MESA Finnie Mueller PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TheEffectsofFamily

TheMESAProject Thefindings andconclusions expressedin

TheSchool of Policy Studies at Queen's society; and to build a national alliance of

The Canada Millennium Scholarship

Ross Finnie is a professor at the University of Ottawa

Introduction earlier in life if the longterm goalis to in

tionsoftheir children. They are alsoableto teringeithercollegeoruniversity.

Utilizingmultinomiallogitmodels tocap Thepaperis organizedas follows:thefol

tionandthat relaxingshorttermcredit con (2005)similarly findthatPSEattendancegap

X2 includes one element of the wider

suchadditional measuresaffectsour under One potentialissueintheestimation of

The dependent variables in our study classified as college students if included in

ously donotobserveany potentialtransition rental education level is included, however,

parisongroup(parents havecompletedhigh cluded in the model. Restuccia and Urrutia

These results are almost identical for both whoare auniversitygraduateonmalesuni

gests money mightbematteringat thepoint Themost importantoftheseis academic

andincludedinthehighschool environment, Parental behaviour is divided into three

whiletheinclusionofthereadingscorede When all these scale variables are con

is a skillderivedover aperiod of time, this OverviewoftheFindings

of competenceandconfidenceat school)is The policy implications of this research

Cameron, StephenV., andJamesJ. Heckman.1998.LifeCycle SchoolingandDynamicSelectionBias:

Carneiro, Pablo, andJamesJ.Heckman. 2002.TheEvidenceonCredit ConstraintsinPostSecondary

Christophides,LouisN.,JimCirello,andMichael Hoy.2001.FamilyIncome andPostSecondaryEduca

Corak, Miles,GarthLipps, andJohnZhao. 2003. Family Income andParticipationin PostSecondary

Cunha,Flavio,andJames J.Heckman.2007.TheTechnology ofSkill Formation,AmericanEconomic

Finnie,Ross, andRonaldMeng.2005.LiteracyandLabourMarketOutcomes:Selfassessment versus

Frenette, Marc.2005. TheImpactofTuitionFees onUniversity Access: Evidencefrom a Largescale

Frenette, Marc. 2007. Why areYouthfromLowerincome Families LessLikely toAttendUniversity?

Heckman,JamesJ.2007.TheEconomics,Technology andNeuroscience ofHumanCapability Forma

Junor,Sean, andAlexUsher.2004. ThePriceofKnowledge2004: Access andStudentFinanceinCan

Keane,Michael P.2002.Financial Aid,BorrowingConstraints,andCollege Attendance:Evidencefrom

Keane,Michael P.,andKennethI.Wolpin.2001.The EffectofParentalTransfers andBorrowingCon

Observations 7852 7850 7850 7850 7846 7846 7597 7749

Observations 8311 8311 8309 8309 8311 8309 8171 8252

Categorical Grades (%)

You might also like