Inequality in enrolment and aspirations in higher education in times of increasing (subjective) costs

Transcription

1 Inequality in enrolment and aspirations in higher education in times of increasing (subjective) costs A study in inequality between students of higher and lower socioeconomic backgrounds in the Netherlands between 2009 and 2011 Margrietha t Hart (s ) Master Thesis Research Master Social and Cultural Science Radboud University Nijmegen Supervisor: Dr. Maurice Gesthuizen In cooperation with: ResearchNed bv February 2013

2 Contents List of Figures... 4 List of Tables...5 Abstract Introduction Theoretical background and Hypotheses Explanations of educational system and student support in the Netherlands Dutch educational system Regulations regarding student grants and loans Choice for higher educational track Human capital theory Reproduction theory Rational action theory Aspirations Maintained inequality Reproduction theory Rational action theory Debt aversion Financial capital Data and Measurements Data Dependent variables Tertiary educational track Aspirations Independent variables Changes in student support and tuition fees: timing of interviews Socioeconomic background Perceived difficulty Influence of parents/ parental support Economic motives Expectations Debt aversion Parental financial support Financial situation Control variables Prior education Ability Gender, ethnicity, disability, and living situation Sector Analyses Preliminary analyses Enrolment in higher educational track Tests of increased inequality Tests of explanations of increased inequality

3 4.2.3 Tests of increased importance of economic motives Aspirations Tests of increased inequality in the aspiration to move on to university after one year Tests of explanations of increased inequality in the aspiration to move on to university after one year Tests of increased inequality in the aspiration to move on to university after the Bachelor s Tests of explanations of increased inequality in the aspiration to move on to university after the Bachelor s Tests of increased inequality in the aspiration to obtain a university Master s degree Tests of explanations of increased inequality in the aspiration to obtain a university Master s degree Summary of the effects found in the analyses on aspirations between years Panel analyses Changes in aspirations for university students Changes in aspirations for higher professional education students Economic crisis Conclusion and Discussion Higher educational track Aspirations Limitations and future research References...68 Appendix

4 List of Figures Figure 1: N per year, per survey 26 Figure 2: Tertiary educational track per parental higher education and year, in % 37 Figure 3: Aspirations to move on to university after one year per parental higher education and year, in % 37 Figure 4: Aspirations to move on to university after higher professional education Bachelor s, per parental higher education and year, in % 38 Figure 5: Aspirations to move on to university Master s per parental higher education and year, in % 38 Figure 6: Aspirations to follow a higher track within tertiary education in 2009/2010 and 2011 for students enrolled in higher professional education in 2011, per parental higher education, in % 39 Figure 7: Aspirations to follow a higher track within tertiary education in 2009/2010 and 2011 for students enrolled in university in 2011, per parental higher education, in % 39 Figure A1: Tertiary educational track per family income and year, in % 74 Figure A2: Aspirations to move on to university after one year per family income and year, in % 74 Figure A3: Aspirations to move on to university after higher professional education Bachelor s per family income and year, in % 74 Figure A4: Aspirations to move on to university Master s per family income and year, in % 75 Figure A5: Aspirations to follow a higher track within tertiary education in 2009/2010 and 2011 for students enrolled in higher professional education in 2011, per family income, in % 75 Figure A6: Aspirations to follow a higher track within tertiary education in 2009/2010 and 2011 for students enrolled in university in 2011, per family income, in % 75 4

5 List of Tables Table 1: Descriptive statistics of variables used in the analyses on tertiary educational track 34 Table 2: Descriptive statistics of variables used in the analyses on aspirations 35 Table 3: Descriptive statistics of variables used in the panel-analyses on aspirations 36 Table 4: Odds ratios between parental higher education and educational track or aspirations for the years 2009, 2010, and Table 5: Logistic regression analysis on being enrolled in university versus higher professional education 43 Table 6: Logistic regression analysis on being enrolled in university versus higher professional education (continued) 44 Table 7: Logistic regression analysis on being enrolled in university versus higher professional education. Interactions with economic motives are included for selections of students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and selections of students of higher socioeconomic backgrounds 46 Table 8: Logistic regression analysis on being enrolled in university versus higher professional education. Three-ways interactions with year, economic motives and socioeconomic backgrounds are tested 48 Table 9: Logistic regression analysis on having aspirations to switch to university after one year 52 Table 10: Logistic regression analysis on having aspirations to switch to university after one year (continued) 53 Table 11: Logistic regression analysis on having aspirations to move on to university after Bachelor s 55 Table 12: Logistic regression analysis on having aspirations to move on to university after Bachelor s (continued) 56 Table 13: Logistic regression analysis on having aspirations to move on to university Master s 58 Table 14: Logistic regression analysis on having aspirations to move on to university Master 59 Table 15: Logistic regression analysis on having educational aspirations for higher professional education students (Panel analysis) 60 Table 16: Logistic regression analysis on having educational aspirations for university students (Panel analysis) 61 Table A1: Logistic regression analysis on having aspirations to move on to higher professional education Master s 76 Table A2: Logistic regression analysis on having aspirations to move on to higher professional education Master s (continued) 77 Table A3: Logistic regression analysis on having aspirations to PhD position 78 Table A4: Logistic regression analysis on having aspirations to PhD position (continued) 79 Table A5: Logistic regression analysis on having educational aspirations for higher professional education students and the influence of the economic crisis (Panel analysis) 80 Table A6: Logistic regression analysis on having educational aspirations for higher professional education students and the influence of the economic crisis (Panel analysis) 80 5

6 Abstract This study tests whether inequality has increased between students of higher and lower socioeconomic backgrounds in the likelihood to be enrolled in a higher track of tertiary education and in holding educational aspirations in the Netherlands between 2009 and We expect increased inequality as in that time policy measures were announced and implemented regarding the level of student support and tuition fees in higher education. Furthermore, explanations for the expected increases of inequality are provided and tested. Data of the Start Monitors 2009 to 2011 are used, wherein a representative sample of freshmen are surveyed, which have been supplemented with data of the Student Monitor This made it possible to perform part of the analyses as panel-analyses. Results imply that inequality persists in higher education, both in enrolment and in holding aspirations. However, we could not find convincing evidence for an increase in inequality. For that reason, parental influence, perceived difficulty of the subject, economic motives, and student s academic confidence could not explain increase in inequality, though they had in most analyses the expected significant effects. Inequality was also found in the panel analyses, to some degree. Mixed results were obtained from the effects of debt aversion, parental financial contribution, parental influence, and student s financial situation. Limitations are discussed and recommendations for future research are provided. 6

7 1. Introduction Despite educational expansion and reforms a large body of research found that inequality in education persists (Boudon, 1974; Lucas, 2001; Pfeffer, 2008; Raftery & Hout, 1993; Shavit & Blossfeld, 1993), also in tertiary education (Asplund, Abdelkarim, & Skalli, 2008). This means that children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are less likely to enrol and succeed in higher educational tracks than children from higher socioeconomic backgrounds. The latter are more advantaged because of their parental resources, may that be financially, or otherwise. For the Netherlands, the effect of parent s education on highest obtained educational level declined on average from 1920 till 1980, but from the 1960s, a stagnation of this inequality was noticed (Rijken & Dronkers, 2001). De Graaf and Wolbers (2003) showed that almost all Dutch pupils who were eligible in 1997 to enter higher education did so (more than 90 percent) but that the choice for level of higher education still depends on socioeconomic background. Even when students had obtained the same secondary educational level, students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds more often chose for a lower tertiary educational track. This finding was supported for the cohorts between 1932 and 1995 (Tieben & Wolbers, 2010b). Van den Broek et al. (2011) even report a slight increase between the years 2003 and 2009 in the likelihood that students of higher socioeconomic backgrounds more often choose for a higher tertiary educational level than students of lower socioeconomic backgrounds, despite having the same prior education. This finding is striking, because they also found an increase of 100,000 students enrolled in higher education between those years, and a decrease in average socioeconomic level of students in the highest secondary educational track. To improve the access of higher education in the Netherlands, especially for students of lower socioeconomic backgrounds, grants are given to students. The level of support depends on parental income. Matějů, Konečný, Vossensteyn, and Weidnerová (2009) found that the inequality between students in enrolment of higher education indeed decreased for the younger birth cohorts in the Netherlands, especially since the implementation of a renewed financial support system in However, student support systems become less generous worldwide. Governments have limited public resources while universities are in demand for more funding, and more students enrol in higher education (Barr, 2004). This leads to a trend towards more cost-sharing (Johnstone, 2004) meaning that costs of higher education are shifted more and more from public funding alone to shared funding by students and their families. As education returns high private economic benefits it is reasoned that it is fair to let students pay a substantial part of their education through tuition fees (Bray, 2002) whereby needy students should receive grants or loans which they can repay when they are in the occasion (see for example Finnie (2002) for an explanation of this kind of support models). In the Netherlands, some students might have feared that costs of being enrolled in higher education increased as a law was accepted in July 2011, which states that students who have more than one year delay in their studies must pay increased tuition fees (Wet verhoging collegegeld langstudeerders [Law increased tuition fee for students with more than one year delay], 2011). An online research reported that one out of ten secondary education students who were in their last year indicated to change their choice because of this law. Changes in choice included a year delay before studying, enrolment in a higher track of secondary education, and to choose an easier subject (10 procent verandert keuze door langstudeerboete [10 percent changes choice because of new law], 2012, May 14). Prior to and simultaneously with the mentioned law other policy measures were 7

8 implemented or announced, which will be discussed in detail in the theoretical section. Policy measures like these lead to concerns about the access of higher education (Asplund, et al., 2008; Wilkins, Shams, & Huisman, 2012). Usher (2006) summarized the benefits of grants for students of lower socioeconomic status and stated that the net-tuition price should be zero or below (p. 25), which might be endangered by the announced changes. The aim of this study is to investigate whether educational inequality has increased since the announcements and implementations of these policy measures. Therefore, the situation before the announcements of most new policy measures will be compared with the period in which the measures were announced. This leads us to the following research question: (1) To what extent did differences between students of higher and lower socioeconomic backgrounds in the likelihood to choose the higher level of tertiary education change between 2009 and 2011? Prior research has come up with explanations for the persistent inequality between students of different socioeconomic backgrounds. One of them, rational action or relative risk aversion theory (Breen & Goldthorpe, 1997), focuses on differences in aspirations: Students of lower socioeconomic backgrounds are assumed to have less aspirations than students of higher socioeconomic backgrounds. By aspirations we mean the plans or intentions students have for their educational career. The theory is further explained in the theoretical section. Various studies support the assumption of differences between students of different socioeconomic backgrounds in educational aspirations (Bélanger, Akbari, & Madgett, 2009; Bowden & Doughney, 2010, 2012; Need & De Jong, 2001; Reynolds & Johnson, 2011). Studying aspirations is important as it appears to be one of the key factors in explaining achievement and participation in education, even when controlled for prior achievement (Rothon, Arephin, Klineberg, Cattell, & Stansfeld, 2011). Though previous research studied especially aspirations and actual choices of secondary education students towards higher education, once students enrol in higher education, there are still choices to be made, and there is further education to aspire (Wakeling, 2005; Zimdars, 2007). Since 2003, a new educational system was implemented in the Netherlands in order to make Dutch higher education degrees more comparable with other European degrees. Studies in higher education became subdivided into Bachelor s and Master s programs (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2003). A consequence of this new educational system was that students of a lower (tertiary) educational track can more easily move on to a higher educational track. Between 2009 and 2011, approximately 15 percent of students who are enrolled in the higher tertiary educational track came from a lower track ( This reveals that students make use of the opportunities to move on to university. However, the question remains which students make use of these opportunities. Tieben (2011) found that obtaining an extra degree within secondary education (supplement) was more popular among students of higher socioeconomic backgrounds. R. Becker and Hecken (2009b) concluded that advantaged students use a lower tertiary education track as a safety net to assure educational opportunities (p. 244). Are students of higher socioeconomic backgrounds also more likely to aspire to supplement in tertiary education? Next to supplement, students can aspire to attain further education by enrolment in a subsequent program of the same degree. Prior research in other countries had found that students of higher socioeconomic backgrounds were more likely to be enrolled in post-undergraduate 8

9 education than students of lower socioeconomic backgrounds, and that student s aspirations before graduation could explain those inequalities (Mullen, Goyette, & Soares, 2003; Zarifa, 2012). This indicates that in those studies, inequality in aspirations existed on the tertiary education level, and that those aspirations could explain educational attainment. We are interested whether there is also inequality between students of different socioeconomic backgrounds in the aspirations to move on to a higher educational track within tertiary education in the Netherlands. (2) To what extent are students from higher socioeconomic backgrounds more likely to hold aspirations than students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds? Because of the new policy measures, costs may rise to continue studies in higher education. These costs may also be perceived costs, for example a perceived high debt. R. Becker and Hecken (2009a) found that subjective costs indeed decreases the likelihood to choose for higher education. Furthermore, students can adjust their aspirations to the new policy measures. Especially students of lower socioeconomic backgrounds may be more likely to drop out of education after having obtained their Bachelor s degree whereas students of higher socioeconomic backgrounds continue education with a Master s program, even when the first group had the same educational aspirations as the latter group in 2009 or This leads us to the following research questions: (3) To what extent did differences between students of higher and lower socioeconomic backgrounds in the likelihood to hold aspirations change between 2009 and 2011? (4) To what extent are students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds less likely to hold aspirations than students from higher socioeconomic backgrounds in 2011, given that they aspired the same educational level in 2009? All in all, by expressing these research questions, this study investigates whether inequality has increased between students of different socioeconomic backgrounds in being enrolled in a higher track of higher education and in holding educational aspirations. In coming to express these research questions, we already mentioned some theories which give support to expectations about (increased) inequality between students of different socioeconomic backgrounds. Though many studies attempt to explain inequality between students (Boudon, 1974; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977; Breen & Goldthorpe, 1997), we are more interested in explaining the supposedly increased inequality between students in the mentioned outcomes. Because new policy measures were announced in the studied time period, some of the mechanisms of inequality between students can be stronger, or more important, than before (Quast, Spangenberg, Hannover, & Braun, 2012). As the announced policy measures affect the level of student support and of tuition fees, we expect that especially the effects of increased (subjective) costs explain the (supposedly) increased inequality in both enrolment in higher educational track (Wilkins, et al., 2012) as well as in holding aspirations. Most of those effects, like expected ability, can be deducted from the rational action theory (R. Becker & Hecken, 2009b), which will be explained into more detail in the theoretical section. Not only can those mechanisms explain (increased) inequality between students, some mechanisms may become more important to some students than before. We will investigate whether one of these mechanisms will be stronger for students of lower socioeconomic backgrounds in 2011 than in 2009 in their choice for a higher tertiary educational track instead of the lower track. The research questions read: 9

10 (5) To what extent can mechanisms of inequality explain the supposedly increased inequality between students of higher and lower socioeconomic backgrounds in the likelihood to choose the higher track of higher education between 2009 and 2011? (6) To what extent have mechanisms of inequality become stronger for students of lower socioeconomic backgrounds in the likelihood to choose the higher track of higher education between 2009 and 2011? (7) To what extent can mechanisms of inequality explain the supposedly increased inequality between students of higher and lower socioeconomic backgrounds in the likelihood to hold educational aspirations? When the law regarding the increased tuition fee after more than one year delay was announced, a student union started an online petition against the draft law ( People could also write down their story why they were against the draft law. Those stories are documented (Interstedelijk Studenten Overleg, 2011). This study makes use of those stories to supplement the theoretical section. We did so by scanning the stories in order to reveal what the content of the story was. If something was said about (expected) difficulties of students to finance their education, or expectations about the draft law s influence on access of higher education, or on educational aspirations, those stories were selected, and saved in another document. A total of 71 stories out of 2,363 were selected in this way. When writing the theoretical section, we selected the story which fitted best to the section in our opinion. Sometimes, we looked up another story because of new theoretical insights, and entered a specific search term in order to get a story which could supplement the section. Although there are a lot of studies that researched educational inequalities in the transition from secondary education to tertiary education (Need & De Jong, 2001), this study adds new knowledge to existing studies by studying a short time period in which proposals were done regarding student financial support and tuition fees. The impact of such changes could therefore be examined in relation to access of higher education. Not only are we able to study changes in actual choices, and intentions, between students who were enrolled in 2009, and freshmen in 2011, but also were we able to examine changes in aspirations of students who were enrolled in 2009, and still participated in higher education in As mentioned before, several studies have studied the impact of aspirations in the transition to tertiary education (Cooper, 2009; Need & De Jong, 2001; Tolsma, Need, & de Jong, 2010; Wells, Seifert, Padgett, Park, & Umbach, 2011), but few studies examined aspirations among higher education students, not to speak about changes in aspirations students have. Most studies employ quantitative, or qualitative methods to answer research questions. While this study will make use of quantitative analyses, we supplement the theoretical section with stories of students in reaction of one of the greatest announced change to support the important theories, which provides a more in-depth picture of the possible consequences of these new laws, in terms of changing social inequalities in higher education. 10

11 2. Theoretical background and Hypotheses In this section, we will first briefly describe how the Dutch educational system and financial support system are organized. Then, we will outline relevant theories regarding educational inequality and how financial support affects that inequality. We deduct hypotheses from these theories and from the explanations of what will change, or what was proposed to change, in the financial support to students. First, the hypothesized effects on actual choice for level of higher education track are discussed, followed by a description of expected effects on holding educational aspirations. 2.1 Explanations of educational system and student support in the Netherlands Dutch educational system To understand educational inequality in the Netherlands it is important to know how the educational system is organized. After primary school, which typically is finished at age 12, secondary education is compulsory. Three tracks within secondary education exist: junior vocational training or junior general secondary education ( VMBO ), senior general secondary education (HAVO), and preuniversity education ( VWO ). After completing HAVO or VWO, to enrol in tertiary education is not compulsory, but most students do (P. M. De Graaf & Wolbers, 2003). HAVO students, and students from vocational education (MBO), level 4, have access to higher professional education ( hogescholen or HBO ) while VWO students have the choice between higher professional education or the more prestigious university ( universiteit or WO ). In general, in higher professional education the focus is on vocational education whereas universities focus on academic education. When students are enrolled in higher education they can move on to a higher level. Students enrolled in higher professional education can move on to university after completion of their first year ( propedeuse ), or after completion of the four year Bachelor s program. In the last case, they might decide to follow a university Bachelor s or Master s program. Often, higher professional education students have to follow a shortened university Bachelor s program or pre- Master program in order to get access to the Master s. Another option to move on to a higher level is to enrol in a higher professional education Master s after completion of the higher professional education Bachelor s program. Mostly, some work experience is also required in order to get access to such a program. Students who are enrolled in university start with a three year Bachelor s program. After completion of the Bachelor s, most students choose to enrol in the Master s program. A next step may be to enrol in a PhD s program or a specialized program such as a specialization program of Medicines Regulations regarding student grants and loans As mentioned earlier, students receive grants to finance their studies. Students with the Dutch nationality, younger than 30 years old, and studying at a Dutch higher professional education or university receive a loan which will be turned into a gift if they succeed to complete their studies within the duration of ten years ( prestatiebeurs, performance grant). They can receive additional finances, dependent on their parents income and the number of siblings enrolled in higher education. In general, when the parental income is beneath the modal income, a student can receive the total amount of the additional grant ( aanvullende beurs, additional grant). For the curriculum year , those amounts were ( basisbeurs, basic grant) and = 11

12 (aanvullende beurs) per month for students who live with their parents. For students living on their own, the amounts were (basisbeurs) and = (aanvullende beurs) per month. In addition, students can take up government funded loans unconditional of their parents income. The maximal amount is per month, for both students living with their parents and students living on their own. The interest rate amounts 1.39 for the year Next to this general student loan, a loan exists by which tuition fees can be paid ( collegegeldkrediet, tuition fee credit). How much money a student is allowed to borrow depends on which tuition fee he or she has to pay. The same repayment conditions apply to this loan as to the more general student loan. Students receive funding for the period of their study program. They are allowed to borrow from the government for the period of their study program plus three years. Next to this direct funding, students receive indirect funding by a student card for the public transport ( ov-studentenkaart, public transport card). With this card students can travel for free during weekdays or in the weekend (students have to choose). They receive discount for the period in which they cannot travel for free. The card is part of the performance grant and students can use it as long as they have the right to take out a student loan ( Due to the new policy measures, some of those regulations have changed, or have been proposed to change 1. In short, new regulations are that students are required to pay an increased institution tuition fee for second subjects in the same grade (proposed in December 2008, accepted in February 2010). Tuition fees also rise for students who have more than one year delay (announced in October 2010, formally proposed in December 2010, accepted in July 2011, implemented in September 2012; rejected in October 2012). The time period in which students can make use of the student card for public transport is shortened to nominal study duration plus one year (proposed in March 2011, accepted in July 2012, being effective in January 2013). Proposed changes were loans instead of grants for Master s students (announced in October 2010, formally proposed in March 2011, cancelled in May 2012, proposed again in October 2012), and a longer period in which students can repay their debt (proposed in March 2011, cancelled in May 2012, proposed again in October 2012). In the next sections, while briefly describing the relevant theories, we will explain in greater detail the changes due to the new policy measures, and how they might have affected students; first we will discuss the possible effects on choice for higher educational track, then the possible effects on the likelihood to hold educational aspirations. 2.2 Choice for higher educational track Human capital theory Human capital theory (G. S. Becker, 1964) explains why students would invest in higher education. Students expect that they will receive high benefits from education in occupational status, and income and decide that the benefits outweigh the costs, thus choose to participate in higher education (Menon, 1997; Reimer, 2011). Although human capital theory can explain why students will invest in education, it fails to explain why some students perceive higher rates of return from 1 Note that in the year , two lawsuits against the state ( or universities ( were held in order to prevent the implementation of the new regulations. In July, 2012, the increased tuition fee for students who are delayed for more than one year was judged to be legal except for students who study in part-time. 12

13 education than others, by assuming that all students perceive costs and benefits of education equally (Reimer, 2011). As mentioned in the introduction, sociological studies have found evidence that inequality persists between students from lower and higher socioeconomic backgrounds in the transition to higher education, even when ability, or the level of prior education is controlled for (e.g., Tieben & Wolbers, 2010b) Reproduction theory Two prominent research lines exist which attempt to explain educational inequality (Van de Werfhorst & Hofstede, 2007). First of all, we will discuss the social or cultural reproduction theory, developed by Bourdieu and Passeron (1977). This theory is an explanation why inequality persists despite the removal of financial barriers. Students of higher socioeconomic backgrounds keep their advantage above their peers because of cultural capital. Children from higher social classes receive more cultural resources from their parents and therefore know how to behave in the right manner (habitus), which will be approved by teachers in school (the field) (McCoy & Byrne, 2011). Thus, they will do better in school, obtain higher grades (DiMaggio, 1982; Esping-Andersen, 2004; Van de Werfhorst & Hofstede, 2007) and are more likely to move on to the highest educational level than their peers from low socioeconomic classes (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977). Almquist, Modin, and Östberg (2009) found that the better the peer status in primary school, the higher educated children later on were in Sweden. Not only approval by teachers, but also by peers lead to better educational outcomes. Cultural capital reinforces itself, because education is a cultural resource (N. D. De Graaf, De Graaf, & Kraaykamp, 2000), and in this way, the elite of society maintains their high educational and financial position. An example of how education is also a cultural resource can be found in the following story: The first grandchild and the first of the family who will enrol in higher professional education. Which subject do I have to choose, which fits best to my personality? Help!! Interstedelijk Studenten Overleg, 2011, story 278) The student in that story apparently missed information from significant others about studying in higher education. Though this reveals lack of cultural capital, it could also be a lack of social capital. Coleman (1988) introduced the concept social capital, by which he meant the expectations and obligations people have towards each other, the flow of information, and the norms within a social group. The impact of social support or norms as social capital are revealed in the following stories: After 1.5 years I noticed that [the subject psychology] offered too little challenge, and the mathematic part was disappointing, and I wanted something else, at that moment, but also for my future. I decided then to complete my studies and to choose some more courses under encouragement of as well a student counsellor as well as my family and friends. (Interstedelijk Studenten Overleg, 2011, story 2155) When graduating from the VWO a logical decision is to enrol in university. Often I heard: To enrol in higher professional education is not done, otherwise you should have graduated from HAVO. (Interstedelijk Studenten Overleg, 2011, story 1769) Coleman (1988) showed how bonds between parents and children can help children in the likelihood to stay in school until graduation. If parents do not have a strong relationship with their children, even if the parents obtained higher education, they are not able to transfer human capital to their 13

14 offspring. This finding was supported by the studies of Teachman, Paasch, and Carver (1997) and Perna and Titus (2005). Ream and Palardy (2008) found that parents of higher socioeconomic backgrounds had more social capital available than parents of lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Social capital could indeed explain children s educational achievement. Lauglo (2011) supports these findings for Norway for another kind of social capital, namely how often adolescents talk about politics and social issues with their parents. Children who talk more about these issues with their parents have ceteris paribus more often parents who have obtained higher education, and the children themselves have higher educational achievements, and higher ambitions. Jæger (2007b) found that social capital in the sense of information resources had become more important in the secondary education attainment of children. The student of the next story reveals some of the impact of information resources on tertiary education subject choice: I decided to apply for the study Cognitive Artificial Intelligence, a subject I had never heard of at school, and first heard of via friends at university. (Interstedelijk Studenten Overleg, 2011, story 1303) In a recent study conducted in the Netherlands, it appeared that social capital, operationalized as parental voluntary association membership, significantly influenced children s occupational status attainment for a younger birth cohort ( ) whereas in an older cohort ( ) no such effect was found (Van Houten, Gesthuizen, & Wolbers, 2012). Moreover, the effect of this kind of social capital on children s educational attainment was stronger for the younger birth cohort, indicating that this kind of social capital had become more important. The following student argues why being involved in an association has impact on the status of student s first occupation: I am a Law student for five years in the meantime. We are stimulated to distinguish ourselves because every year, some 600 students enrol in Law studies, and every one obtains the same grade basically. Activities to distinguish yourself from others are, among others, a (extracurricular) internship, to study abroad for a semester, to be involved in a student association, or to follow another subject within Law. (Interstedelijk Studenten Overleg, 2011, story 120) As this research line states that the higher social classes find ways to establish the advantages despite of diminishing financial barriers to education, following this theory we do not expect that students of higher socioeconomic backgrounds behave differently after the introduction of changes in financial support to students than before Rational action theory The rational action or relative risk aversion theory seeks to explain why there is inequality in highest educational level between higher and lower social classes given the same level of ability. In other words, why do lower socio-economic class children reach a lower level of education when their school performance is high? Boudon (1974) called the difference in school performance by social classes primary effects, while the differences between the social classes in educational level despite the same school performance were called secondary effects. Breen and Goldthorpe (1997) suggest that those secondary effects can be explained by (subjectively) rational choice in educational transitions: Children from lower social classes require belief that they will succeed in further education, and the costs of education as well as forgone earnings must not exceed the educational investment. Furthermore, Breen and Goldthorpe expect that parents would like their children to 14

15 attain at least the same educational and occupational status as they themselves have. Put differently, they seek to avoid downward social mobility. Children of low socioeconomic backgrounds will have reached this goal obtaining a lower educational level, while children of high socioeconomic backgrounds must obtain the highest educational level. The aspirations of children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are lower than the aspirations of children from high socioeconomic backgrounds. Several studies indeed found support for the notions that students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds perceive costs to be higher (R. Becker & Hecken, 2009a, 2009b; Sianou- Kyrgiou & Tsiplakides, 2011), rate their educational success lower (R. Becker & Hecken, 2009a, 2009b; Flacher & Harari-Kermadec, 2011; Need & De Jong, 2001), and aspire less education (McCoy & Byrne, 2011; Need & De Jong, 2001) compared to students of higher socioeconomic backgrounds. Furthermore, Holm and Jæger (2008) and Stocké (2007) found specific evidence for the assumption of avoiding downward social mobility. Fergusson, Horwood, and Boden (2008) showed that parental educational aspirations could explain the relationship between parental socioeconomic status, and children s educational achievement at age 25, just like children s cognitive ability. Recently, it was found that those secondary effects were more important in explaining educational inequality than primary effects, and that the secondary effects increased in explanatory power (Schindler & Lörz, 2012). Steelman and Powell (1991) found that aspirations of higher educated parents also matter for parental financial support: higher educated parents, who had higher educational aspirations for their children, were more likely to view financial support their responsibility rather than their children s, and were more likely to indeed support their children financially. In addition, Tolsma, Need, and De Jong (2010) found that parental financial contributions to higher education increased the odds of being enrolled in university versus higher professional education. Hansen (2008) showed that educational inequality increases in times of economic inequality and insecurity. In summary, it appears that finances matter in educational choices, especially to students of lower socioeconomic backgrounds. In the situation as was proposed, costs rise for some students. In September 2012, the tuition fee increased from 1,771 (government subsidized fee) to 4,834 ( for students who have a delay of more than one year in their studies 2. Only students who are disabled or suffer from a (chronic) illness receive one year extra to complete their Bachelor s or their Master s program before paying the increased tuition fee. Students were allowed to borrow the increased amount of 3,063, even if they did no longer have the right to borrow any other amount from the government. This regulation to borrow the increased amount only was effective until September However, in October 2012, the government decided to withdraw this law. Students who had paid the increased tuition fee got their money back before December As this was not known during the time in which data were gathered, this outcome has no effect on our results. Some students are likely to face new, additional costs of studying if they want to complete another Bachelor s or Master s program above a completed Bachelor s or Master s program. For those students, the subsidized tuition fee does no longer apply. Institutions can charge them fees. 2 If a student graduates in the year he/she has to pay the increased tuition fee, the student gets the amount paid back for the months he is not enrolled in higher education. 15

16 Those fees vary by institution, degree, and by subject. To give an indication of the institution charged fees, we provide the amounts for the same studies at different universities: a Bachelor in Law at the University of Amsterdam amounts to 9,000 ( in while the same Bachelor s amounts to 6,200 at the University Utrecht ( The Bachelor in Law at the higher professional education Arnhem and Nijmegen is 7,000 ( Exceptions are students whose second subject is in the sectors Health or Education, unless their first subject was in those sectors. Though these policy measures account for senior students, freshmen may have feared that those increasing costs would eventually apply to them, and supposedly made different choices to prevent increasing costs. For senior students, there was the possibility to borrow the increased amount of tuition fee. However, that regulation would have been no longer effective for freshmen who have more than one year delay in 2015 and later. The same accounted for the regulation regarding institution s tuition fees: students who began their second subject before graduation in their first subject, and who continued the second subject, did not have to pay the institution s tuition fee or a reduced institution s tuition fee in the academic year After that year, this regulation is no longer effective. Therefore, we expect that there are differences between freshmen enrolling in 2009, 2010, and Students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds especially are more likely to fear increasing costs than students from higher socioeconomic backgrounds as is expressed in the following story: I m from a family whose income is beneath the poverty line. My parents haven t had an education. Yet, I achieved to obtain my university Bachelor s degree within three years, without retakes and a mean grade of 7.5. ( ) I can already tell that people like me will not be able to pay an extra amount of 3,000 euro tuition fee in the case of unexpected delay. That prospect could even be a reason to decide not to study at all, just in case. Might your thesis fail to succeed you are left with an extremely high debt! Because of our background people like me fear poverty. (Verhalen achter de cijfers. Verhalen van langstudeerders ingestuurd naar [Stories behind the numbers. Stories of students who are delayed submitted on the website , story 1609) We expect the following: H1: The inequality between students of higher and lower socioeconomic backgrounds in the likelihood to choose university rather than higher professional education increased between the years 2009 and Parental aspirations are an important aspect within rational action theory (Holm & Jæger, 2008), as it is expected that parents fear downward social mobility. Schoon, Martin, and Ross (2007) found that parents who experienced economic hardship at the children s age of 16 were less likely to hold educational aspirations for their children. Kirk, Lewis-Moss, Nilsen, and Colvin (2011) stated that the number one reason given for low parental expectations among almost exclusively parents of lower socioeconomic backgrounds was the costs involved of post-secondary education. If (perceived) costs of upward social mobility increase, then, parents are likely to have less educational aspirations for their children. They might strongly advise their children to follow no more education than the parents have had obtained. For children of highly educated parents, this means that they still have to reach the highest tertiary education level, whereas children of parents who have not obtained higher 16

17 education can drop out of tertiary education (Gil-Flores, Padilla-Carmona, & Suárez-Ortega, 2011), or choose a lower track. Parental influence on children s choice matter for the children s educational attainment (Wells, Seifert, et al., 2011). This implies that in times of increasing costs, children of lower socioeconomic backgrounds will be stronger advised by their parents to attain a lower tertiary education track, and are indeed more likely to choose the lower track instead of the higher track compared to children of higher socioeconomic backgrounds. The second hypothesis reads: H2: More parental influence on children s choice in 2011 compared to 2009 and 2010 can explain the increased inequality in those years between students of higher and lower socioeconomic backgrounds in the likelihood to choose university rather than higher professional education. Students of lower socioeconomic backgrounds are expected to be affected most by increasing costs (Paulsen & St John, 2002). Among them, those who still choose for university rather than higher professional education are likely to expect larger economic benefits than students of lower socioeconomic backgrounds who enrol in higher professional education. This is in line with the study of Anchor, Fišerová, Maršίková, and Urbánek (2011) who found that students who stay in education when costs rise may expect even larger benefits from education in expected wages. Moreover, Rolfe (2002), having conducted interviews with lecturers in English universities, noted that students appeared to be driven more by career reasons than in the past. She connected this change in motivation with reduced student support. Economic motives motivate students from all socioeconomic backgrounds in choosing a subject, but these motives may differ in their meaning across backgrounds. For students of lower socioeconomic backgrounds, motives like a higher salary may be more relevant in choosing a higher education subject, while students of higher socioeconomic backgrounds are more driven by motives to attain the same occupational status as their parents have. We only focus on economic motives of students of lower socioeconomic backgrounds in the following hypothesis: H3: Economic motives are stronger among students of lower socioeconomic backgrounds who choose university rather than higher professional education in 2011 than students of lower socioeconomic backgrounds who choose university rather than higher professional education in 2009 and Another consideration in the choice for higher education, according to rational action theory, is to what extent students believe that they will succeed in their studies (Jæger & Holm, 2012). Prior research indicated that students of lower socioeconomic backgrounds had lower expectations about succeeding in higher education than students of higher socioeconomic backgrounds (R. Becker & Hecken, 2009b; Need & De Jong, 2001; Tolsma, et al., 2010), while expectations were found to have a significant effect on study progress (Beekhoven, De Jong, & Van Hout, 2004), and Zarifa (2012) found that the more academic confidence, the higher the odds of participating in post-undergraduate education five years later. Since 1996, financial support is based on performance: if students do not succeed in completing their studies within ten years, they have to repay received financial support (Vossensteyn & De Jong, 2006). Failing to succeed in higher education thus became more expensive than before. Due to high dropout rates, a regulation was introduced that gave higher educational institutions permission to force freshmen to quit their studies by means of an obligatory advice, based on the amount of obtained study points ( bindend studieadvies [obligatory study advice]). 17

18 The amount of study points (in ECTS) needed differs per institution, and per subject (wet op het hoger onderwijs en wetenschappelijk onderzoek [law on higher education and scientific research], article 7.8b). Some studies also sharpened regulations regarding examinations (e.g., Psychology at the Radboud University where freshmen cannot retake an examination when they scored lower than a 3.0 the first time or did not participate the first time, (Onderwijs- en Examenregeling Bacheloropleiding Psychologie [Regulations of Education and Examination of the Bachelor's program Psychology, ]) 2011, p. 13). In the situation like it was introduced, switching to another study after one year does not mean that you will pay the increased tuition fee. However, if you fail to complete the second subject in the nominal study duration, or when you switch after more than one year, you will have to pay the increased tuition fee. Again, it is more important to make the right choice, and to succeed in higher education. The following student expresses the uncertainty whether to continue or not, because this student foresees extra delay due to waiting time for internships while the student had already used the year delay by switching to another study. When this student knew of the policy measures before enrolment in higher education, (s)he might have chosen to stay enrolled in the originally chosen subject. Because of these new policy measures, I began to doubt. One year of my studies I do no longer receive financial aid because of the system of selection and my decision to do an alternative study instead of working or traveling. I thus have to pay one year of the Master s. In the period of my internships, I have to work, unpaid, approximately 40 till 60 hours a week, making it impossible to be involved in a paid job. As students have to wait long before they may begin their internships, and you often have to go to hospitals in the neighbourhood (sometimes 1.5 hours travel time), it would be hard if students themselves have to pay for the costs. Not only hard, but in my case also impossible. What should I do then? (Interstedelijk Studenten Overleg, 2011, story 753) As is argued that students, especially those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, will perceive more pressure to choose the right subject in which they feel certain that they can succeed, we expect that students of lower socioeconomic backgrounds more often will choose subjects in higher professional education rather than university. Subjects in higher professional education are then perceived as easier to obtain. In other words: H4: The perceived difficulty of a subject can explain the increased inequality in 2011 compared to 2009 and 2010 between students of higher and lower socioeconomic backgrounds in the likelihood to choose university rather than higher professional education. 2.3 Aspirations Maintained Inequality More students of lower socioeconomic backgrounds have obtained higher education than they would have fifty years ago (Rijken & Dronkers, 2001). However, Raftery and Hout (1993) stated that there is still maintained inequality. Their theory, maximally maintained inequality theory, explains that despite the educational expansion and educational reforms, inequality between social origins and educational transitions is equal across birth cohorts until a saturation point for the higher 18

19 socioeconomically status groups is reached within an educational transition (Raftery & Hout, 1993). However, Lucas (2001) argued that inequality even then persists in his explanation of the effectively maintained inequality. Advantaged groups try to keep their advantage above their disadvantaged peers by seeking higher tracks within an educational track. Examples are excellent trajectories, and additional programs, or courses (Boliver, 2011; Hällsten, 2010). By doing so, they distinguish themselves from the others, and effectively maintain inequality. The theory was tested, and supported, for the distinction in choice made between university and higher professional education in the Netherlands (Tieben & Wolbers, 2010b). However, we believe that a more accurate test of this theory would be in investigating differences in choices made by students of varying backgrounds in moving on within tertiary education. Students of higher socioeconomic backgrounds are then more likely to proceed to a Master s degree, for example, than students of lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Zimdars (2007) indeed found that advantaged students were more likely to participate in postgraduate education than their peers of less advantaged backgrounds in the United Kingdom. Students of higher parental education were also more likely to participate in post-undergraduate education than students of lower parental education in the United States (Mullen, et al., 2003), and in Canada (Zarifa, 2012). The educational aspirations students had before graduation could explain some of that educational inequality in both studies, which shows the relevance of studying students aspirations Reproduction theory Though the maximally or effectively maintained inequality theories predict that in inequality maintains (to some extent) in the highest educational level, the reproduction theory is able to explain inequality in educational aspirations. Cultural and social capital are found to predict educational aspirations (Gil-Flores, et al., 2011; Wells, Seifert, et al., 2011). For example, Stewart, Stewart, and Simons (2007) showed that cultural capital (in the sense of teacher s approval) and social capital (in the sense of positive peer network) had positive effects on African American students college aspirations, just as ability and parental education had. Evidence for a positive influence of social capital (support from family and peers) on students aspirations was also found for the Netherlands among Dutch students in vocational post-secondary education (Elffers & Oort, 2012). Sewell and Shah (1968) found that social capital explained differences between social classes in aspirations. Based on these results, we expect inequality between students in their aspirations in tertiary education: H5: Students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are less likely to aspire following a higher track within tertiary education than students from higher socioeconomic backgrounds Rational Action Theory Furthermore, we formulate hypotheses regarding differences between students in aspirations within years as we have information about different students in the years 2009, 2010, and Just like when we formulated expectations regarding different behaviour in actual choice, we do not expect differences in aspirations based on social reproduction theory, but we can formulate hypotheses following rational action theory. We are also able to test these hypotheses within students as we also have information about students in 2009 or 2010, and In other words, we can test the hypotheses about holding aspirations between years in two different ways. First, we assess whether 19

20 there are differences between students who are enrolled in different years in higher education, assuming that those students are comparable. Next, we follow students in their higher education career for one or two years. In so far as possible, we conduct hypotheses on differences in aspirations for both data, where hypotheses (a) refer to the cross-sections and hypotheses (b) refer to the panel data. We have already argued that differences between students will increase in actual choice for higher educational tracks when costs for higher education increase, following rational action theory. What about differences in aspirations? Costs of realizing aspirations have increased as we will outline now. Some students chose to start at higher professional education before enrolling in a university s program. The following story explains why this can be beneficial: My interest lay in the subject Cultural Anthropology, but I decided to enrol in higher professional education because I had not been enrolled in the educational system for some time. This way, I increased my chances to succeed, and decreased the likelihood that my selfconfidence would be damaged even more. (Interstedelijk Studenten Overleg, 2011, story 382) Indeed, Tieben (2011), in explaining why more children of lower socioeconomic backgrounds choose to supplement an extra degree in secondary education instead of obtaining a degree directly, suggests that a repetition year can give more security. However, in the situation as was proposed, if a student fails to complete the Bachelor s within nominal study duration, the student has to pay the increased tuition fee. It is likely, therefore, that under this condition less students will choose to consider university education by achieving the higher professional education s propedeuse, and that less students enrolled in higher professional education will have the ambition to move on to university after more than one year at higher professional education. Also, following another program of the same degree becomes expensive as institutions may charge students higher fees. Students who wish to study at university after completion of their Bachelor s program at higher professional education are mostly obliged to follow a one- or two years pre-master program. Costs already were higher for those students as they did no longer receive financial support from the government. However, due to the new regulations, they have to pay during their pre-master program the institution s charged tuitions level, or are at risk to pay the additional amount of 3,063 tuition fee during their Master s. 3 The following story is an example of a student who held aspirations towards a university Master s degree, and who explains the additional costs involved in enrolling in a Master s: I have completed a study at higher professional education. I completed this study within four years, I gained a lot of experience, and eventually decided to extend the experiences with more theory by following a Master s. This Master s program is only one year, but students from higher professional education have to follow a pre-master year to complement theoretical knowledge. During this year, you register yourself for the Master s. After one year 3 It depends on the educational institution if students have to pay this fee. In some institutions, students are registered during their pre-master as Bachelor s. As they already have obtained a Bachelor s degree, they have to pay the institutions tuition fee. In other institutions, those students are registered as following a Master s program. They do not obtain a diploma when they complete the pre-master year(s), but enrol in the Master s. However, they already have one year delay when beginning with their Master s program, or even two years in case their pre-master s is a two year program. 20