[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/nierev/v243y2018ipr37-r52_13.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Incentivising Specific Combinations of Subjects – Does It Make Any Difference to University Access?

Author

Listed:
  • Anders, Jake
  • Henderson, Morag
  • Moulton, Vanessa
  • Sullivan, Alice
Abstract
A major part of the 2010–15 UK government's education reforms in England was a focus on the curriculum that pupils study from ages 14–16. Most high profile was the introduction of the English Baccalaureate (EBacc) performance measure for schools, incentivising study of “subjects the Russell Group identifies as key for university study” (Gibb, 2011). However, there does not appear to be good quantitative evidence about the importance of studying such a set of subjects, per se. This paper sets out to analyse this question, considering whether otherwise similar young people who study specific sets of subjects (full set for EBacc-eligibility, two or more sciences, foreign languages, applied subjects) to age 16 have different probabilities of entering university, and specifically a high-status university. It compares results from regression modelling and propensity score matching, taking advantage of rich survey data from a recent cohort of young people in England. We find that conditional differences in university entry attributable to subject choice are, at most, small.

Suggested Citation

  • Anders, Jake & Henderson, Morag & Moulton, Vanessa & Sullivan, Alice, 2018. "Incentivising Specific Combinations of Subjects – Does It Make Any Difference to University Access?," National Institute Economic Review, National Institute of Economic and Social Research, vol. 243, pages 37-52, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:nierev:v:243:y:2018:i::p:r37-r52_13
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0027950100001770/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:nierev:v:243:y:2018:i::p:r37-r52_13. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/niesruk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.