IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/uwe/wpaper/0403.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Gender Specific Peer Groups and Choice at 16

Author

Listed:
  • Don J Webber

    (School of Economics, University of the West of England)

Abstract

The UK government’s aim of achieving a 50% staying on rate in higher education at the age of 16 might not be achievable because it is demandconstrained: not all students want to stay on in education at 16. Peer groups are known to be stronger for boys than for girls and often influence choice at 16. The purpose of this paper is to examine the influence of gender-specific peer groups on students’ intentions and realisations to stay-on into post-compulsory education at the age of 16. The results suggest that boys’ intentions and realisations are influenced by their male peers. However, girls’ intentions are influenced by their whole peer group while their realisations are influenced by their female peer group. Policy targeted to increase participation rates should recognise these gender differences.

Suggested Citation

  • Don J Webber, 2004. "Gender Specific Peer Groups and Choice at 16," Working Papers 0403, Department of Accounting, Economics and Finance, Bristol Business School, University of the West of England, Bristol.
    • Handle: RePEc:uwe:wpaper:0403
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://carecon.org.uk/DPs/0403.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2004
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rice, P.G., 1996. "Further education or the job queue? A study of choice of activity by young persons based on evidence from the Youth Cohort Study," Discussion Paper Series In Economics And Econometrics 9639, Economics Division, School of Social Sciences, University of Southampton.
    2. Henderson, Vernon & Mieszkowski, Peter & Sauvageau, Yvon, 1978. "Peer group effects and educational production functions," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 97-106, August.
    3. repec:bla:manchs:v:67:y:1999:i:2:p:203-30 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. repec:bla:econom:v:54:y:1987:i:216:p:465-75 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Derek Leslie & Stephen Drinkwatr, 1999. "Staying on in Full‐Time Education: Reasons for Higher Participation Rates Among Ethnic Minority Males and Females," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 66(261), pages 63-77, February.
    6. William N. Evans & Wallace E. Oates & Robert M. Schwab & William N. Evans & Wallace E. Oates & Robert M. Schwab, 2004. "Measuring Peer Group Effects: A Study of Teenage Behavior," Chapters, in: Environmental Policy and Fiscal Federalism, chapter 13, pages 232-257, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. David M. Armstrong, 1999. "School Performance and Staying On: A Micro Analysis for Northern Ireland," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 67(2), pages 203-230, March.
    8. Heckman, James J, 1976. "A Life-Cycle Model of Earnings, Learning, and Consumption," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 84(4), pages 11-44, August.
    9. repec:bla:econom:v:56:y:1989:i:221:p:25-39 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Summers, Anita A & Wolfe, Barbara L, 1977. "Do Schools Make a Difference?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(4), pages 639-652, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David Brasington & Don Haurin, 2005. "Capitalization of Parent, School, and Peer Group Components of School Quality into House Price," Departmental Working Papers 2005-04, Department of Economics, Louisiana State University.
    2. Dennis N. Epple & Richard Romano, 2003. "Neighborhood Schools, Choice, and the Distribution of Educational Benefits," NBER Chapters, in: The Economics of School Choice, pages 227-286, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Bala, Venkatesh & Sorger, Gerhard, 1998. "The evolution of human capital in an interacting agent economy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 85-108, July.
    4. Donald Robertson & James Symons, 1996. "Do peer Groups Matter? Peer Groups versus Schooling Effects on Academic Attainment," CEP Discussion Papers dp0311, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    5. Glewwe, Paul, 1997. "Estimating the impact of peer group effects on socioeconomic outcomes: Does the distribution of peer group characteristics matter?," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 39-43, February.
    6. Epple, Dennis & Figlio, David & Romano, Richard, 2004. "Competition between private and public schools: testing stratification and pricing predictions," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(7-8), pages 1215-1245, July.
    7. Dwight R. Lee & Richard B. McKenzie, 1998. "How the Client Effect Moderates Price Competition," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(3), pages 741-752, January.
    8. Kang, Changhui, 2007. "Classroom peer effects and academic achievement: Quasi-randomization evidence from South Korea," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 458-495, May.
    9. Marisa Hidalgo-Hidalgo, 2007. "On the optimal allocation of students when peer effect works: Tracking vs Mixing," Working Papers 07.14, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.
    10. L Feinstein & James Symons, 1997. "Attainment in Secondary School," CEP Discussion Papers dp0341, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    11. Jorge Calero & Josep-Oriol Escardíbul, 2007. "Evaluación de servicios educativos: el rendimiento en los centros públicos y privados medido en PISA-2003," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 183(4), pages 33-66, december.
    12. McEwan, Patrick J., 2003. "Peer effects on student achievement: evidence from Chile," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 131-141, April.
    13. Vandenberghe, Vincent, 1999. "Cost Efficiency and Feasibility of Education Policy in the Presence of Local Social Externalities," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 1999021, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    14. Marisa Hidalgo, 2005. "Peer Group Effects And Optimal Education System," Working Papers. Serie AD 2005-12, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    15. Dills, Angela K., 2005. "Does cream-skimming curdle the milk? A study of peer effects," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 19-28, February.
    16. Jacob M. Markman & Eric A. Hanushek & John F. Kain & Steven G. Rivkin, 2003. "Does peer ability affect student achievement?," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(5), pages 527-544.
    17. Iversen, Jon Marius Vaag & Bonesrønning, Hans, 2015. "Conditional gender peer effects?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 19-28.
    18. Cremer, Helmuth & Maldonado, Dario, 2013. "Mixed oligopoly in education," IDEI Working Papers 766, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse.
    19. Fertig, Michael, 2003. "Educational Production, Endogenous Peer Group Formation and Class Composition - Evidence From the PISA 2000 Study," RWI Discussion Papers 2, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung.
    20. Epple, Dennis & Newlon, Elizabeth & Romano, Richard, 2002. "Ability tracking, school competition, and the distribution of educational benefits," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 1-48, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Education economics; School choice.;

    JEL classification:

    • J24 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Human Capital; Skills; Occupational Choice; Labor Productivity
    • J31 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Wages, Compensation, and Labor Costs - - - Wage Level and Structure; Wage Differentials
    • I2 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:uwe:wpaper:0403. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Jo Michell (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/seuweuk.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.