1

Where the Boys Aren’t: Recent Trends in U.S. College Enrollment Patterns

Patricia M. AndersonDepartment of EconomicsDartmouth CollegeAnd NBER

2

“Just the Facts, Ma’am” In 1972, males made up 56 percent of

overall college enrollments

In 2004, males made up 43 percent of overall college enrollments

Similar trends are seen in full-time enrollment and degree attainment

3

Official Statistics on Fraction of College Students Who Are Male

0.38

0.40

0.42

0.44

0.46

0.48

0.50

0.52

0.54

0.56

0.58

1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Year

Frac

tion

Full-T ime Total

Source: Digest of Educational Statistics, Table 185

4

The Sample Data

October supplement to the Current Population Survey (CPS) collects information on school enrollment

Survey covers the civilian, non-institutionalized population

I look at those age 17 to 50 who have not already graduated from college

5

“Just the Facts, Ma’am” Part 2 While noisier, sample statistics reflect

the same basic trends: Fraction male 57 percent in 1972 Fraction male 44 percent in 2004

Decline in male enrollments not quite as sharp when focus only on “traditional students” Fraction male among full-time, 4-year-

college students drops from 52 percent to 46 percent over this time period

6

Sample Statistics on Fraction of College Students Who Are Male

0.4

0.42

0.44

0.46

0.48

0.5

0.52

0.54

0.56

0.58

0.6

1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Year

Frac

tion

All College Students College Students Age 18-22 4-Yr College Students Age 18-22

Source: Author Calculations from October CPS for given years

7

Some Descriptive Analysis In the early years, the older students are

more likely to be male Likely lingering effects of the Vietnam War, as

veterans benefit from the GI Bill In the later years, the older students are

more likely to be female Likely changing social climate, as previous

investment decision no longer optimal Result is a “catch-up” in educational

attainment by earlier cohort females

8

Male/Female Ratio in Enrollment and Attainment by Birth Cohort

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1951 1953 1955 1957 1959 1961 1963 1965 1967 1969 1971 1973 1975

Approximate Birth Year

Prob

abili

ty R

atio

Enrollment in 4-yr college (age 18-22) Have Degree by March 98-02

Source: Author calculations from October CPS, individual years; March CPS MORG files, pooled 1998-2002

9

Probability of Enrollment Sampled females increasingly more likely to be

enrolled than sampled males Note males more likely out of sample due to higher

incarceration and military rates Decline in male/female ratio is less steep for younger

individuals Recall patterns already seen for earlier cohorts

Conditional on high school graduation, the probability of enrollment was almost equal for younger males and females during the 1990s (later than other groups) Note males are more likely to drop out of high school

10

Male/Female Ratio on Probability of Being Enrolled in College

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.30

1.40

1.50

1.60

1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Year

All Age 18-22 Age 18-22, 4-yr college Age 18-22, 4-yr college, HS grads

Source: Author calculations from October CPS for given years

11

A Simple Model of Human Capital Investment Invest in human capital as long as marginal

cost is not greater than marginal benefit For annual earnings, Y; annual costs, C;

working life, T; and discount rate, r; attend if:

0

11 11

T

tt

nct

T

ttt

ct

r

Y

r

CY

12

Implications of the Model –Less Likely to Invest:

The higher the costs of schooling Decline in male eligibility for the GI Bill

could decrease male enrollments Higher psychic costs (males tend to get

worse grades in high school) could decrease male enrollments

The higher the discount rate If increased future earnings are heavily

discounted, higher current earnings could decrease male enrollments

13

Implications of the Model –More Likely to Invest:

The longer one expects to work Social changes that lead to women expecting

longer, less interrupted careers would imply increased female college enrollments

The bigger the gap between college and high school earnings

If wages for college-educated women have increased faster than for men, or if wages for high school-educated men have increased faster than for women, then would expect increased female college enrollments

14

Determinants of Enrollment Focus on 20-year olds, by cohort A cohort is a group of 5 birth years

1953-1957, 1958-1962, etc. For each cohort, a separate linear

probability model is estimated In addition to basic demographics, the

explanatory variables are motivated by the basic human capital investment model

15

Explanatory Variables

Demographics Marital status, race, veteran status, etc.

State-level tuition, unemployment rate Economic returns

25th percentile wages for college-educated workers age 28-32 of your sex, race, state

75th percentile wages of HS-educated workers age 23-27 of your sex, race, state

16

Within Cohort Decompositions Male-female difference in the probability of

enrollment can be decomposed into 2 parts:

Unexplained (i.e. the coefficient on male)

Explained by differences in means:

fcmcccfcmc XXPP ˆˆ

17

Decomposition of Enrollment of 20-year-olds born from 1953 to 1957

male-female coefficient coefficientmale female difference (std error) *difference

Difference in Enrollment Rate 0.266 0.228 0.038Unexplained(i.e. male dummy) 1.000 0.000 1.000 -0.019 -0.019Explained by (0.030) never married 0.804 0.593 0.211 0.268 0.056

(0.012) spouse gone 0.013 0.047 -0.034 0.032 -0.001

(0.016) black 0.115 0.133 -0.017 -0.100 0.002

(0.039) white 0.868 0.858 0.010 -0.014 0.000

(0.038) south 0.313 0.337 -0.025 0.009 0.000

(0.019) veteran 0.041 0.000 0.041 -0.145 -0.006

(0.020) ln(state tuition) 7.536 7.525 0.010 -0.033 0.000

(0.028) ln(state UR) 1.852 1.848 0.005 -0.029 0.000

(0.018) ln(weekly earnings) {25% for college grad} 6.380 5.710 0.670 0.058 0.039

(0.019) ln(weekly earnings) {75% for HS grad} 6.739 6.105 0.635 -0.050 -0.031

(0.046) high school graduate 0.821 0.826 -0.004 0.213 -0.001

(0.012) intercept 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.188 0.000

(0.309)Total Explained 0.056 Percentage Explained 149%

means

18

Decomposition of Enrollment of 20-year-olds born from 1973 to 1977

male-female coefficient coefficientmale female difference (std error) *difference

Difference in Enrollment Rate 0.327 0.344 -0.017Unexplained (i.e. male dummy) 1.000 0.000 1.000 -0.023 -0.023Explained by (0.023) never married 0.928 0.819 0.109 0.268 0.029

(0.018) spouse gone 0.012 0.030 -0.018 0.055 -0.001

(0.025) black 0.138 0.156 -0.018 -0.136 0.002

(0.030) white 0.808 0.795 0.014 -0.021 0.000

(0.029) south 0.367 0.349 0.018 -0.040 -0.001

(0.018) veteran 0.012 0.003 0.009 -0.141 -0.001

(0.065) ln(state tuition) 8.021 8.024 -0.003 -0.016 0.000

(0.035) ln(state UR) 1.730 1.728 0.001 -0.112 0.000

(0.035) ln(weekly earnings) {25% for college grad} 6.314 5.917 0.397 0.002 0.001

(0.031) ln(weekly earnings) {75% for HS grad} 6.603 6.185 0.418 -0.035 -0.014

(0.047) high school graduate 0.834 0.859 -0.025 0.346 -0.009

(0.017) intercept 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.398 0.000

(0.481)Total Explained 0.006 Percentage Explained -36%

means

19

Within Cohort Decomposition Highlights Within cohort, the male dummy is never

significantly different from zero Higher marriage rates for females are

important, especially for the early cohorts Higher earnings for male high school

graduates are important, especially for the later cohorts when it is not offset by the effect of higher earnings for male college graduates

20

Across Cohort Decompositions The change in the male-female difference

in the probability of enrollment can also be decomposed into the unexplained part and the part explained by the change in the differences in means:

fcmctfctmctc XXXX ̂

21

Across-Cohort Decompositionmale-female male-female later - early difference difference chort coefficents coefficient

in means for in means for change in for *change inearly cohort late cohort differences late cohort differences

Change in Difference in Enrollment Rate 0.038 -0.017 0.055 Explained by never married 0.211 0.109 0.101 0.268 0.027 spouse gone -0.034 -0.018 -0.016 0.055 -0.001 black -0.017 -0.018 0.001 -0.136 0.000 white 0.010 0.014 -0.004 -0.021 0.000 south -0.025 0.018 -0.043 -0.040 0.002 veteran 0.041 0.009 0.032 -0.141 -0.005 ln(state tuition) 0.010 -0.003 0.014 -0.016 0.000 ln(state UR) 0.005 0.001 0.003 -0.112 0.000 ln(weekly earnings) {25% for college grad} 0.670 0.397 0.273 0.002 0.001 ln(weekly earnings) {75% for HS grad} 0.635 0.418 0.217 -0.035 -0.007 high school graduate -0.004 -0.025 0.021 0.346 0.007Total Explained 0.023 Percent Explained 42%

22

Across-Cohort Decomposition Highlights INCREASES IN RELATIVE FEMALE ENROLLMENT (AS

ACTUALLY OBSERVED) ARE IMPLIED BY Narrowing of the male-female marriage gap

Most important contributor to observed change Increase of the female advantage in HS graduation

Contributes slightly (effect ¼ size of marriage gap)

INCREASES IN RELATIVE MALE ENROLLMENT (OPPOSITE OF OBSERVED) ARE IMPLIED BY Narrowing of male-female HS graduate wage gap

Exactly offsets HS grad effect Decrease in male advantage in veteran status

Very small effect

23

Summary The biggest drop in the male fraction of

college students is likely due to one-time events - End of the Vietnam War

End of draft deferments reduces over-consumption of college by males

Fewer veterans using GI Bill tuition benefits Increased opportunities for women

Enrollment by earlier cohorts at older ages Higher age at first marriage Lower HS drop-out rates