This article addresses the question of how students and their families make educational decisions. We describe three types of behavioral model that might underlie decision-making, and we show that they have consequences for what decisions are made. Our study, thus, has policy implications if we wish to encourage students and their families to make better educational choices. We also establish the conditions under which empirical analysis can distinguish between the three sorts of decision-making, and we illustrate our arguments using data from the National Educational Longitudinal Study.
AndersonTWHsiaoC (1982) Formulation and estimation of dynamic models using panel data. Journal of Econometrics18: 47–82.
2.
ArellanoMBondS (1991) Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Review of Economic Studies58: 277–297.
3.
BreenRGoldthorpeJH (1997) Explaining educational differentials: towards a formal rational action theory. Rationality and Society9(3): 275–305.
4.
BreenRJonssonJO (2000) A multinomial transition model for analyzing educational careers. American Sociological Review65(5): 754–772.
5.
BreenRJonssonJO (2005) Inequality of opportunity in comparative perspective: recent research on educational attainment and social mobility. Annual Review of Sociology31: 223–244.
6.
BreenRYaishM (2006) Testing the Breen-Goldthorpe model of educational decision making. In: MorganSLGruskyDBFieldsGS (eds) Mobility and Inequality: Frontiers of Research in Sociology and Economics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 232–258.
7.
CameronSVHeckmanJJ (1998) Life cycle schooling and dynamic selection bias: models and evidence for five cohorts of American males. Journal of Political Economy106(2): 262–311.
8.
HeckmanJJ (1979) Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica47: 153–161.
9.
HolmAJægerMMKarlsonKB. (2013) Incomplete equalization: the effect of tracking in secondary education on educational inequality. Social Science Research42(6): 1431–1442.
10.
KarlsonKBHolmABreenR (2012) Comparing regression coefficients between same-sample nested models using logit and probit: a new method. Sociological Methodology42: 286–313.
11.
KerAB (2001) On the maximum of bivariate normal random variables. Extremes4: 185–190.
12.
LucasSR (2001) Effectively maintained inequality: education transitions, track mobility, and social background effects. American Journal of Sociology106: 1642–1690.
13.
LucasSR (2009) Stratification theory, socioeconomic background, and educational attainment: a formal analysis. Rationality and Society21: 459–511.
14.
MareRD (1980) Social background and school continuation decisions. Journal of the American Statistical Association75: 295–305.
15.
MareRD (1981) Change and stability in educational stratification. American Sociological Review46: 72–87.
16.
RafteryAEHoutM (1993) Maximally maintained inequality: educational stratification in Ireland. Sociology of Education65: 41–62.
17.
RosenbaumJ (2001) Beyond College for All. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
18.
StangeK (2012) An empirical investigation of the option value of college enrollment. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics4(1): 49–84.
19.
TaberCR (2000) Semiparametric identification and heterogeneity in discrete choice dynamic programming models. Journal of Econometrics96(2): 201–229.
20.
WinshipCMareRD (1983) Structural equations and path analysis for discrete data. American Journal of Sociology88: 54–110.
