Research questions of Chapter 6
Chapter 6 investigated how ethnicity affects the decision for a specifi c track in higher education. Building on the results of Chapter 5, I took the qualitatively differentiated structure of the Dutch educational system in general university tracks and vocational tracks of professional colleges into account. I also took into account that tracks, at both university and professional college, differ in study fi elds.
My point of departure was the Breen-Goldthorpe model. According to this model, students’ transition decisions are based on the expected direct and indirect costs associated with each transition choice, on their subjective beliefs about the utility of educational outcomes, and on subjective beliefs about the likelihood of success in the different available track options. The beliefs of expected future academic success are likely to be infl uenced by factors other than ability, such as knowledge of the schooling system and preferred study effort. If students with the same demonstrated ability but with different ethnic backgrounds have different expectations of future
school success, this may account to some extent for existing ethnic educational differentials. The research question I set out to answer in Chapter 6 was:
To what extent do subjective estimates of success probabilities explain the effect of social origin, sex and ethnicity on students’ choices between different school tracks in Dutch higher education?
Parents of ethnic minority pupils are less likely to have experienced the Dutch school system than parents of native Dutch pupils. Chapter 5 shows that pupils with a non-Western ethnic heritage remain underrepresented in tertiary education. They will have fewer ethnic role models from which information regarding tertiary education could be derived. I therefore assumed that ethnic minority students tend to have less knowledge of the Dutch schooling system than the native Dutch, and that as a consequence they may be less aware that there is more than ability which makes for a successful academic career. Hence I expected their beliefs of future success to be more heavily infl uenced by ability than the success probabilities of native Dutch students. Since I expected differences in success probabilities across social groups, ethnic groups, and male and female students, even after controlling for previous demonstrated ability, I expected these probabilities to explain (in part) the effect of social origin, sex and ethnicity on students’ choices between different levels of schooling and fi elds of study in higher education.
Results of Chapter 6
Previously demonstrated academic ability is an important – albeit not perfect – determinant of the subjective likelihood of future academic success. Pupils from more advantaged social backgrounds have higher expectations of success, and this is largely due to their better demonstrated ability. Women have lower expectations of success for science fi elds than men, but higher expectations for non-science fi elds, even after taking ability differences into account. I also showed that Turks and Moroccans expect to have more success in higher education than native Dutch counterparts with similar ability levels, but that, contrary to my expectations, this is not because higher grades
increase expectations faster for these ethnic groups.5 Still, differences in success probabilities
were relatively small across ethnic groups compared to differences across social origin or sex. Future research should try to clarify the mechanisms of why ethnic groups and male and female students differ in their expectations of future school success.
Success probabilities explain to a large degree the effect of sex and parental income on choice of study fi eld, as expected. However, success probabilities could not explain differences across ethnic groups in choice of study fi eld. Also contrary to my expectations, success probabilities do not explain the effect of ascribed characteristics on the choice between general and vocational tracks. The latter fi nding clearly contradicts the Breen-Goldthorpe model.
Conclusion of Chapter 6
The Breen-Goldthorpe model is a very promising theoretical framework for the explanation of school transition decisions. The assumption within this model that ability is a suffi cient indicator for students’ success probabilities needs to be relaxed though, since in the fi rst place ascribed
characteristics infl uence success probabilities next to previous demonstrated ability (although for reasons as yet unknown), and secondly since success probabilities explain the impact of ascribed characteristics on school transition decisions better than demonstrated ability. Future research should try to shed more light into why ascribed characteristics like social origin, sex and ethnicity affect expectations of success in the educational system.
Subjective success probabilities explain differentials in choice of study fi eld across social origins and between the sexes. However, ethnicity’s effect on school transition decisions cannot be explained by either differences in the perceived costs of studying, educational aspirations or success probabilities. Why the Breen-Goldthorpe model is less applicable to ethnic minority groups remains unclear. This puzzling fi nding warrants further academic attention.
The educational integration of ethnic minorities is lacking, as evidenced in Chapter 5. In Chapter 6 I showed that a theory with considerable merits for explaining school transition decisions of students from different social backgrounds or sexes is less applicable towards explaining the school transition decisions of ethnic minority students. Why would this be so? The fi ndings of both Chapters 5 and 6 raise more doubts as to whether the effect of educational attainment on ethnic hostility is similar across ethnic groups. This was the subject of Chapter 7.