Gender differences in preferences for taking risk in college applications

Saygin, Perihan

doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2016.02.002

Cited by 23 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They posit that this results from greater risk-aversion and a lower willingness to compete for highly demanded opportunities. Saygin (2016) shows that, in Turkey, girls applying to college through the centralized application system are less likely to apply for high-ranking universities than equally qualified boys. In contrast, in the Irish application system, Delaney and Devereux (2021), find no gender gap in selectivity of programs applied to amongst high achieving students and that, among low achievers, females are more likely to apply to selective programs than males.…”

Section: A Risk Aversion Confidence and Willingness To Competementioning

confidence: 99%

Gender and Educational Achievement: Stylized Facts and Causal Evidence

Delaney

Devereux

2021

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: A Risk Aversion Confidence and Willingness To Competementioning

confidence: 99%

Gender and Educational Achievement: Stylized Facts and Causal Evidence

Delaney

Devereux

2021

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Probably the most closely related paper to ours is work by Saygin (2016). She shows that, in Turkey, there is no gender difference in the selectivity of the first-choice programme chosen by college applicants, but females appear to be more risk-averse, listing more programmes with low entry requirements than males.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 59%

“…Using a survey of college applicants in Turkey and a slightly different definition of safe choices,Saygin (2016) finds that, on average, girls list 0.40 more safe choices than boys. She does not report how this varies across the achievement distribution.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender differences in college applications: Aspiration and risk management

Delaney

Devereux

2021

Economics of Education Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but IZA takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA Guiding Principles of Research Integrity. The IZA Institute of Labor Economics is an independent economic research institute that conducts research in labor economics and offers evidence-based policy advice on labor market issues. Supported by the Deutsche Post Foundation, IZA runs the world's largest network of economists, whose research aims to provide answers to the global labor market challenges of our time. Our key objective is to build bridges between academic research, policymakers and society. IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author.

show abstract

“…In column (4) of Table 2, we instead focus on the lowest points level 8 programme listed as this affects the probability the student gets offered an honours degree programme. Interestingly, we find that, for this variable, the female effect is positive -on average, the lowest points honours degree programme listed by girls requires about 2 more 30 Using a survey of college applicants in Turkey and a slightly different definition of safe choices, Saygin (2016) finds that, on average, girls list 0.40 more safe choices than boys. She does not report how this varies across the achievement distribution.…”

Section: Managing the Risk Of Getting No Offermentioning

confidence: 81%