University Admission in Russia: Do the Wealthier Benefit from Standardized Exams?

1. University Admission in Russia: Do the Wealthier Benefit from Standardized Exams? Ilya Prakhov, Maria Yudkevich Center for Institutional Studies at the National Research University Higher School of Economics Higher School of Economics , Moscow, 2012 www.hse.ru

2. Motivation • Admission reforms in Russia and the Unified State Exam (the USE, a standardized national exam) as a new mechanism of admission to universities. • Consequences: • reduction of transaction costs concerning admissions (moving costs, costs of application etc.); • Less restricted college choice; • No need for specific investment in pre-entry coaching. • THEORY suggests an increase in accessibility and equality of higher education. • But the wealthier can still benefit from the new system of admission: • more resources to invest in the general preparation process; • the level of income is related to revealed risk aversion; • role of social and cultural capital in university choice. photo photo Higher School of Economics , Moscow, 2012

3. Objectives • Analysis of the differences in USE results for students from different income groups. • Analysis of impact of income status (family income level) on • the preparatory strategies of students; • their actual USE scores; • choice of university. photo photo Higher School of Economics , Moscow, 2012

4. Results of empirical studies: effects of income on students’ achievement • students’ achievement is to a large extent defined by the socio-economic status of their families (Coleman et al, 1966) • positive and significant correlation between the level of parental income and the level of the student’s achievement (White, 1982) • positive non-linear relationship between income and a student’s academic performance (Hill, O’Neil, 1994) • positive effects of income have been proven not only by educational statistics, but by information gathered during the series of experiments (Morris et al, 2004) • consumption and education (Lebowitz, 1977) • income, beliefs, and parental behavior (Davis-Kean, 2005) photo photo Higher School of Economics , Moscow, 2012

5. Results of empirical studies: impact of income on college choice • poorer students more often than others choose colleges with lower tuition fees, closer to their home, prefer living with their parents during their college years and less frequently decide to continue their studies after receiving their bachelor’s degree(Baird, 1977) • the level of income slightly affects the type of college chosen: SAT results constitute the main predictors of this kind of choice (Baird, 1984) • family and its characteristics significantly affect the process of choice and the final of educational institution (Chapman, 1981; Litten, 1982) • the difference in income between black and white students determines the divergence in their educational trajectories (Datcher, 1982) • students from less advantaged and more advantaged families consider different criteria when making their college choice (Delaney, 1988) • students from low income families tend to apply to less selective universities than richer students, irrespective of their achievement (Hearn, 1991) photo photo Higher School of Economics , Moscow, 2012

6. Features of Russian system of higher education • Dual-track tuition system: both state-subsidized (tuition-free) and tuition-paid places. • Students are admitted for tuition-free places on the assessment of applicants’ quality, regardless of their financial needs. • Rejection of university-specific exams. • The Unified State Examination: • introduced nationwide in 2009 • two obligatory subjects: Russian (National language) and Mathematics • extra preparation is possible • two ‘waves’ in admission process photo photo Higher School of Economics , Moscow, 2012

7. Methodology and data • Research:pre-entry strategies and college choice in 2009-2010 • Geography: 16 biggest Russian cities • Timing: Fall 2010 (after admission) • Sample: 1600 households (1165/901) • Respondents: high school graduates (enrollees) and their parents • Main variables: • the USE scores in Russian, Mathematics, average score in obligatory subjects, overall average results • level of income: photo photo Higher School of Economics , Moscow, 2012

8. Income level and USE scores photo photo Higher School of Economics , Moscow, 2012

9. Differences in USE results under fixed achievement (Mathematics) photo photo Higher School of Economics , Moscow, 2012

10. Money expenditures on pre-entry coaching as a mechanism of improving the USE results photo photo Higher School of Economics , Moscow, 2012

11. Returns from extra preparation (regression analysis) photo photo Higher School of Economics , Moscow, 2012

12. Returns from extra preparation (regression analysis) • Income positively and significantly affects USE results in all cases. The investment in pre-entry coaching is significant and has a positive effect on the scores as well. However, the investment effect is lower than the effect of income. photo photo Higher School of Economics , Moscow, 2012

13. Returns from extra preparation under fixed income • The marginal effect of investing in pre-entry coaching increases with the rise of the level of income for almost all USE results, aside from the average overall result. This means that the same amount of investments in pre-entry coaching have a higher return and are more effective for high income students. photo photo Higher School of Economics , Moscow, 2012

14. Relationship between university choice and income status • Families from the higher income group choose more expensive institutions. • On average, richer students are admitted to universities with a higher level of competition for state subsidized positions. • At least for low and medium achievers, we can argue that the relationship between level of income and university choice (where the indicator of choice is the average USE score among students who study for free) is significant and positive. photo photo Higher School of Economics , Moscow, 2012

15. Conclusion • Wealthier households still can invest more financial resources in preparatory process which can result in their children’s increased final USE results. • There is a positive relationship between the level of income and USE results in Russian and Mathematics, as well as in the average score on obligatory subjects and the average overall USE result. This tendency is maintained even under fixed prior achievements before the start of the process of pre-entry coaching. • Students from wealthier families tend to choose additional ways of preparation more frequently, specifically pre-entry courses and classes with tutors. • Nevertheless, the higher amount of investments in pre-entry coaching is made by medium income families, but if we consider the effectiveness of such preparation, the richest students have greater benefits and the poorest gain significantly less. photo photo Higher School of Economics , Moscow, 2012

16. Conclusion • A positive relationship between the level of income and the average USE score (indicator of college quality) for low achievers and medium achieversis revealed. • Income status is a significant factor which determines achievement (expressed in USE results), characteristics of pre-entry coaching and university choice. Thus, we cannot conclude that the introduction of the USE has provided equal access to higher education for all income groups of students. photo photo Higher School of Economics , Moscow, 2012

17. 20, Myasnitskayastr., Moscow, Russia, 101000 Tel.: +7 (495) 628-8829, Fax: +7 (495) 628-7931 www.hse.ru