Determinants Of College Major Choice

This paper studies the determinants of college major choice using a unique "information" experiment embedded in a survey. We first ask respondents their "self" beliefs--beliefs about their own expected earnings and other major-specific outcomes conditional on various majors, their "population" beliefs--beliefs about the population distribution of these characteristics, as well as their subjective beliefs that they will graduate with each major. After eliciting these baseline beliefs, we provide students with information on the true population distribution of these characteristics, and observe how this new information causes respondents to update their beliefs. Our experimental design creates unique panel data. We first show that respondents make substantial errors in population beliefs, and logically revise their self beliefs in response to the information. Subjective beliefs about future major choice are positively and strongly associated with beliefs about self earnings, ability, and spouse's earnings. However, cross-sectional estimates are severely biased upwards because of the positive correlation of tastes with earnings and ability. The experimental variation in beliefs allows us to identify a rich model of college major choice, with which we estimate the relative importance of earnings and earnings uncertainty on the choice of college major versus other factors such as ability to complete coursework, spouse's characteristics, and tastes for majors. While earnings are a significant determinant of major choice, tastes are the dominant factor in the choice of field of study. We also investigate why males and females choose different college majors. The following are appended: (1) Figures A1 and A2; and Tables A1, A2, and A3; (2) Information on Survey Design and Information Treatments; (3) and Estimation Details.

This dissertation contains three essays in applied microeconomics. The first chapter evaluates the welfare costs induced by limiting the number of choices in deferred acceptance mechanisms. I show that when the number of choices is capped, some students have to be strategic and that increasing the size of the submittable list can result in better matches, and therefore lead to welfare improvement. I use Iranian college entrance dataset to estimate a novel discrete choice model for centralized university systems, in which I relax the independence of unobserved preference shocks assumption. I validate the model with out of sample data from a quasi-experimental policy change, in which the list cap was increased by 50 percent. In my counterfactual analysis, I calculate that a list cap of 10 choices instead of 100 would incur a 14.2 percent welfare loss. This is equivalent to a 453 km increase in the home-university distance, which is 2.6 times the average distance traveled by Iranian students. I also show that a more restrictive list cap does not affect students at the top and bottom of the ranking, but hurts students with average scores and benefits students in the lower quartile. In the second chapter, I use the aforementioned dataset to find determinants of major choice. I estimate a rank ordered logit model of major choice and show that labor market variables, specifically earnings and unemployment play a significant role in choice of majors by students. The model shows that students prefer majors with higher expected income and expected employment rate. This study also suggests that many students care more about the school they are applying to, rather than the major. Several explanations is possible, for example prestige of some schools might be one reason. Credit constraints that families face or the cultural barriers might also play a role for those students who prefer to stay in their hometown even at the price of studying a major they are not very interested in. Finally, in the third chapter I use neural networks to predict the number of quarters that it takes a student with certain characteristics to graduate from UCLA. I also define a survival model, in such those who did graduate before sixth year were survivors and those who couldn't were the failures.

Major choice matters for both individuals' welfare and the overall economy. A large body of studies in various countries has documented the determinants of college major choices, such as individual background characteristics, expected earnings and ability sorting, structural barriers in K-12 education, peer and family influences and expectations, and supply-side factors (Kanny et al., 2014; Patnaik et al., 2020). This three-chapter dissertation contributes to the literature on college major choices by providing new evidence on the role of factors from both the investment side (student demand) and the supply side (college major reforms) in the college major choices of students in China. In the first paper, "Do Women Hold Traditional Gender Role Beliefs More/Less Likely to Choose STEM Majors in China?", I investigate the role of gender role beliefs in female and male students' college major choices. Women continue to be underrepresented in most STEM-related fields in both higher education and the labor market. The study extends the existing literature by exploring the role of individual gender-related beliefs in college major choices. Using representative college student survey data, I find that female students are substantially underrepresented in most STEM majors. Gender role belief can be one potential underlying psychological factor that explains the gender disparity in STEM major choices. Female students with more traditional gender role beliefs are more likely to choose STEM. The association between the traditional gender role beliefs and STEM major choices for females is predominantly concentrated in the non-advantaged STEM majors and STEM majors at non-selective universities. The pattern exists for students who originate from more advanced household statuses and regions, but not for high-achieving students. Female students entering the STEM domain experienced internalized sexism by assimilating the gendered social norms and endorsing the male privilege in this field. In the second paper, "The Impacts of College Major Reforms on Student Composition in China," I examine the effects of college major reforms on student composition within college-majors. In the context of the Chinese meta-major reform, this paper provides one of the first empirical evidence on the consequences of a transition from college-major to college-then-major choice mechanism. Using administrative data on college admissions over 18 years, I study the impacts of the staggered adoption of the reform across institutions on student composition. I do not find aggregately statistically significant effects of the meta-major reform on the distribution of ability and demographic characteristics of students by college-majors. The result is robust to using alternative measurements, samples, models, and estimators. However, the aggregate null effects are masked by the heterogeneity across institutions and majors. The impact of increasing admission scores is predominantly concentrated in non-elite institutions and non-advantaged STEM majors. The reform also alters the student profile in terms of ethnicity and place of origin at the most prestigious institutions. The third paper - "College-Major Choice to College-then-Major Choice Reform: Experimental Evidence on Student College Major Choice Behavior"--Studies students' responses to various types of information on meta-major reform. One of the most important mechanism design policies in college admissions is for students to choose a college major sequentially (college-then-major choice) or jointly (college-major choice). However, how students behaviorally respond to these policies is unclear. In the context of the Chinese meta-major reforms, the paper provides one of the first experimental evidence on the heterogeneous impacts of a transition from college-major to college-then-major choice on students' willingness to apply, with a special focus on the role of information. In a randomized informational experiment with a nationwide sample of high school graduates, the results show that providing information on the benefits of a meta-major significantly increased students' willingness to apply; however, information about specific majors and assignment mechanisms has insignificant impacts. The information mostly affects the preference of students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, lack accurate information or clear major preferences, or are risk-loving

The choice of a college major plays a critical role in determining the future earnings of college graduates. Students make their college major decisions in part due to the future earnings streams associated with the different majors. We survey students about what their expected earnings would be both in the major they have chosen and in counterfactual majors. We also elicit students' subjective assessments of their abilities in chosen and counterfactual majors. We estimate a model of college major choice that incorporates these subjective expectations and assessments. We show that both expected earnings and students' abilities in the different majors are important determinants of student's choice of a college major. We also show that students' forecast errors with respect to expected earnings in different majors is potentially important, with our estimates suggesting that 7.5% of students would switch majors if they made no forecast errors.

As the workforce has become more educated, educational decisions are no longer just about whether to acquire more, but rather what type of education to pursue. In college, individuals somewhat specialize through their choice of college major. Further specialization occurs in graduate school. This chapter investigates how majors and graduate school affect labor market outcomes as well as how the individuals make these potentially important decisions. To do so, we develop a dynamic model of educational decision-making. In light of the model, we examine the estimation issues associated with obtaining causal effects of educational choices on earnings. We then examine ways that authors have overcome the selection problem as well as the approaches authors have taken to estimate the process by which these educational decisions are made.

This article reviews the recent literature on the determinants of college major choices. We first highlight long-term trends and persistent differences in college major choices by gender, race, and family background. We then review the existing research in six key areas: expected earnings and ability sorting, learning, subjective expectations, non-pecuniary considerations, peer and family effects, and supply side factors. We examine and compare the various approaches employed by previous research and highlight key areas for future research.

Males and females are markedly different in their choice of college major. Two main reasons have been suggested for the gender gap: differences in innate abilities and differences in preferences. This paper addresses the question of how college majors are chosen, focusing on the underlying gender gap. Since observed choices may be consistent with many combinations of expectations and preferences, I use a unique data set of Northwestern University sophomores that contains the students' subjective expectations about choice-specific outcomes. I estimate a choice model where selection of college major is made under uncertainty (about personal tastes, individual abilities, and realizations of outcomes associated with the choice of major). Enjoying coursework, finding fulfillment in potential jobs, and gaining the approval of parents are the most important determinants in the choice of college major. Males and females have similar preferences while in college, but their preferences diverge in terms of the workplace: Nonpecuniary outcomes at college are most important in the decisions of females, while pecuniary outcomes realized at the workplace explain a substantial part of the choice for males. I decompose the gender gap into differences in beliefs and preferences. Gender differences in beliefs about academic ability explain a small and insignificant part of the gap, a finding that allows me to rule out low self-confidence as a possible explanation for females' underrepresentation in the sciences. Conversely, most of the gender gap is the result of differences in beliefs about enjoying coursework and differences in preferences. -- College majors ; uncertainty ; subjective expectations ; preferences ; gender differences ; culture

Males and females are markedly different in their choice of college major. Two main reasons have been suggested for the gender gap: differences in innate abilities and differences in preferences. This paper addresses the question of how college majors are chosen, focusing on the underlying gender gap. Since observed choices may be consistent with many combinations of expectations and preferences, I use a unique data set of Northwestern University sophomores that contains the students' subjective expectations about choice-specific outcomes. I estimate a choice model where selection of college major is made under uncertainty (about personal tastes, individual abilities, and realizations of outcomes associated with the choice of major). Enjoying coursework, finding fulfillment in potential jobs, and gaining the approval of parents are the most important determinants in the choice of college major. Males and females have similar preferences while in college, but their preferences diverge in terms of the workplace: Nonpecuniary outcomes at college are most important in the decisions of females, while pecuniary outcomes realized at the workplace explain a substantial part of the choice for males. I decompose the gender gap into differences in beliefs and preferences. Gender differences in beliefs about academic ability explain a small and insignificant part of the gap, a finding that allows me to rule out low self-confidence as a possible explanation for females' underrepresentation in the sciences. Conversely, most of the gender gap is the result of differences in beliefs about enjoying coursework and differences in preferences. Survey Excerpt is appended. (Contains 17 tables, 2 figures and 42 footnotes.).

The most crucial choice a high school graduate makes is whether to attend college or to go to work. Here is the most sophisticated study of the complexities behind that decision. Based on a unique data set of nearly 23,000 seniors from more than 1,300 high schools who were tracked over several years, the book treats the following questions in detail: Who goes to college? Does low family income prevent some young people from enrolling, or does scholarship aid offset financial need? How important are scholastic aptitude scores, high school class rank, race, and socioeconomic background in determining college applications and admissions? Do test scores predict success in higher education? Using the data from the National Longitudinal Study of the Class of 1972, the authors present a set of interrelated analyses of student and institutional behavior, each focused on a particular aspect of the process of choosing and being chosen by a college. Among their interesting findings: most high school graduates would be admitted to some four-year college of average quality, were they to apply; applicants do not necessarily prefer the highest-quality school; high school class rank and SAT scores are equally important in college admissions; federal scholarship aid has had only a small effect on enrollments at four-year colleges but a much stronger effect on attendance at two-year colleges; the attention paid to SAT scores in admissions is commensurate with the power of the scores in predicting persistence to a degree. This clearly written book is an important source of information on a perpetually interesting topic.