Student employment and academic performance: an empirical exploration of the primary orientation theory

Abstract

This study empirically assesses the thesis that student employment only hurts academic performance for students with a primary orientation toward work (versus school). To this end, we analyse unique data on tertiary education students' intensity of and motivation for student employment by means of a state-of-the art moderation model. We find, indeed, only a negative association between hours of student work and the percentage of courses passed for work-oriented students.This finding may explain the contradictory results in the literature neglecting this factor.

Does Student Work Really Affect Educational Outcomes? A Review of the Literature

“…Another theory that supports a negative association between student work and educational success is Primary Orientation Theory (Warren, ; Bozick, ; Baert et al. , ), often cited in the field of sociology. This theory suggests that the worse academic performance of working students compared to non‐working students is related to their primary orientation being toward work rather than toward school.…”

“…If not, variation in educational outcomes that should be attributed to the pre‐existing differences between working and non‐working students will mistakenly be attributed to the difference in work status (Stinebrickner and Stinebrickner, ; Baert et al. , ).…”

“…A fifth and final approach is the dynamic discrete choice modelling outlined in Eckstein and Wolpin (), Montmarquette, Viennot‐Briot and Dagenais () and Baert et al. (). Similarly to the fourth approach, within dynamic discrete choice models, all relevant school and work outcomes and decisions are jointly modelled (as discrete choices).…”

“…In contrast, Baert et al. () report a negative effect of student work during secondary education only in a very specific case that is with respect to tertiary education enrolment for pupils who work both during the summer and the academic year. In addition, Montmarquette et al.…”

“…() and Baert et al. (), as convincing because we believe these models’ assumption that observable and unobservable determinants of academic success are uncorrelated at the moment of the first modelled outcome is reasonable.…”