IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/restud/v76y2009i4p1431-1459.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cheap Talk in the Classroom: How Biased Grading at School Explains Gender Differences in Achievements, Career Choices and Wages

Author

Listed:
  • Lydia Mechtenberg

Abstract

In this paper, I provide a theoretical explanation for the gender differences in education and on the labour market that are observed empirically in most OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries, including the US Within a cheap talk model of grading, I show that biased grading in schools results in (1) boys outperforming girls in maths and sciences, (2) boys having more top and more bottom achievers in maths and sciences than girls, (3) girls outperforming boys in reading literacy, (4) female graduates enrolling in university studies more often than male graduates, (5) the predominance of female students in arts and humanities at the university, (6) the predominance of male students in maths and sciences at the university and (7) the gender wage gap on the labour market for the highly educated. Copyright 2009, Wiley-Blackwell.

Suggested Citation

  • Lydia Mechtenberg, 2009. "Cheap Talk in the Classroom: How Biased Grading at School Explains Gender Differences in Achievements, Career Choices and Wages," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(4), pages 1431-1459.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:restud:v:76:y:2009:i:4:p:1431-1459
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/j.1467-937X.2009.00551.x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:oup:restud:v:76:y:2009:i:4:p:1431-1459. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/restud .

    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.