Abstract
Abstract Ochsenfeld (2016) has found that a substantial part of sex segregation in higher education results from differences in vocational interests (i.e., preferences), while constraints (e.g., relative math grades) play only a minor role. We challenge the validity of these findings because earlier work employed a cross-sectional student sample and might therefore suffer from endogenous selection (i.e., post hoc rationalizations due to simultaneous reporting of majors and preferences) and postoutcome collider bias (i.e., conditioning on the outcome). Our replication study uses panel data (National Educational Panel Study, NEPS-SC4) that allow adjustment for the two sources of bias through the application of a pretransition preference measure and inverse probability weighting. Our analyses demonstrate the validity of prior research. Furthermore, our analysis indicates that the explanatory power of the overall model and the role of constraints for sex segregation in majors vary across the propensity of sample inclusion, thereby demonstrating the importance of sample composition for testing sociological theories.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
