“…The capacity measure used in this paper reflects both the existence and changes in the size of a university in the area of residence during adolescent years, and therefore more precisely approximates local university availability than the proxies commonly used in the literature. The literature uses the variation in local college accessibility and availability during adolescent years, for example, distance to college (Kane and Rouse, 1993;Carneiro et al, 2011;Doyle and Skinner, 2016;Nybom, 2017), presence of college in the county of residence (Card, 1993;Kling, 2001;Cameron and Taber, 2004;Carneiro, Heckman, andVytlacil, 2010, 2011;Carneiro, Meghir, and Parey, 2013;Doyle and Skinner, 2016) as a proxy for direct costs of college attendance, and the number of colleges (Currie and Moretti, 2003), the number of campuses (Belskaya, Sabirianova Peter, and Posso, 2014), and the number of admitted students (Kyui, 2016) as more precise measures of local college availability. Because capacity is numeric, I can control birth cohort and prefecture dummy variables when estimating the effects of local capacity on university enrollment decisions.…”