nera, the nordic educational research association school of education at the university of iceland...
Post on 29-Jan-2016
236 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
NERA, the Nordic Educational Research Association
School of Education at the University of Iceland Reykjavík 7-9 March 2013
Is there a Nordic invariance in HE educational development – from the perspective of gender
and cohorts?
Jón Torfi Jónasson, School of Education, University of Iceland jtj@hi.isAimee Haley, School of Education, University of Iceland ,
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013 1
The abstractJónasson (2011) argued that from a global perspective there are clear signs of important similarities between the expansion of very different educational systems and relating this the discussion of global expansion (Schofer & Meyer, 2005). It has already been shown that there is considerable affinity between educational expansion at the Nordic upper secondary level (Jónasson, 2003) and the higher educational level as well (Jónasson, 2004). The paper will explore data from all the Nordic countries showing the development for both sexes and for individual cohorts in the range 22-39 and for the different degree levels (although the time-series on this are limited in scope). The dependent variables in the analysis are both enrolment numbers and graduation rates. The available time series typically extend back to the 1970s, but in some cases further back. The similarities and differences between the Nordic systems will be explored from the perspective of these variables. By analysing the variance between the growth characteristics and index of similarity will be discussed. A range of methodological problems will be discussed, inter alia those related to classifying the different HE institutions, and the inclusion of foreign students and students studying abroad.
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013 2
GenderThe gender perspective and the gender gap
– The gender gap within the Nordic countries and compared to other countries?
– How might the gender gap be interpreted?
– The gender story: my observation is that there is a common misconception that there is a gender gap that will at some time close or there is a temporary “overshooting” by the females. But if one looks closely at the trends, the growth of female participation has been different for males and females for a whole century, and the rates of growth were the same while females were much fewer or a majority. This can be underpinned by looking at the growth rates for cohorts which gives a robust picture of the pattern of growth and the invariance within and between the sexes.
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013 3
HE education growing on a world scaleBased on Schofer and Meyer 2005
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013 4
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013
5
y = Ae0,0415x
0
2.000
4.000
6.000
8.000
10.000
12.000
14.000
16.000
18.000
20.000
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000
The growth of the world tertiary student population relative to total population in the 20th century: number of students
per million inhabitants
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013
6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1940 1960 1980 2000
Enr
ollm
ent r
atio
Worldwide enrollment ratio for males and females. Based on Fig. 5 in Schofer and Meyer 2005
Females 1950-2000
Males 1950-2000
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013
7
y = M1e0,0516x
y = M2e0,0656x
y =M3e0,0324x
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1940 1960 1980 2000
Enr
ollm
ent r
atio
Enrollment ratio for males. Based on Fig. 5 in Schofer and Meyer 2005
Males 1950-2000
Males 1950-1975
Males 1975-2000
Expon. (Males 1950-2000)
Expon. (Males 1950-1975)
Expon. (Males 1975-2000)
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013
8
y = F1e0,0696x
y = F3e0,0752x
y = F2e0,0517x
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1940 1960 1980 2000
Enr
ollm
ent r
atio
Enrollment ratio for females. Based on Fig. 5 in Schofer and Meyer 2005
Females 1950-2000
Females 1950-1975
Females 1975-2000
Expon. (Females 1950-2000)
Expon. (Females 1950-1975)
Expon. (Females 1975-2000)
Comparative growth rates, time and gender
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013 9
Based on data derived from Schofer and Meyer 2005
Exponential growth coefficients
Males Females Difference1950-2000 0,052 0,070 0,018
1950-1975 0,066 0,075 0,0101975-2000 0,032 0,052 0,019
“We also explored gender differences in participation by looking at disaggregated tertiary enrollment ratios, which are available in the post-war era. Figure 5 presents the global average of enrollment ratios for independent nations from 1950 to 2000. At the start of the period, higher education enrollment ratios were quite low: just over 2 percent for men and less than 1 percent for women in the average country. The initial expansion disproportionately involved men, increasing the gender gap from about 1.5 points to over 3 points. In raw terms, however, the gap begins to shrink starting after 1970, and parity is achieved around 1990. By 2000 the average female enrollment ratio is higher than the male average by 6 points, a difference of almost 25 percent. It is noteworthy that the “new gender gap,” which has recently been observed in studies of industrialized countries, is also evident in our global averages. The overall trend, however, is similar for men and women. Enrollment ratios grow by more than an order of magnitude over the period, dwarfing the between-gender differences. “ p. 909.
• The Worldwide Expansion of Higher Education in the Twentieth Century. Evan Schofer and John W. Meyer American Sociological Review. December 2005 vol. 70 no. 6 898-920 doi: 10.1177/000312240507000602
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013 10
“We also explored gender differences ...from 1950 to 2000.
At the start of the period, higher education enrollment ratios were ... just over 2 percent for men and less than 1 percent for women in the average country.
The initial expansion disproportionately involved men, increasing the gender gap from about 1.5 points to over 3 points.
In raw terms, however, the gap begins to shrink starting after 1970, and parity is achieved around 1990.
By 2000 the average female enrollment ratio is higher than the male average by 6 points, a difference of almost 25 percent.
It is noteworthy that the “new gender gap,” which has recently been observed in studies of industrialized countries, is also evident in our global averages.
The overall trend, however, is similar for men and women. Enrollment ratios grow by more than an order of magnitude over the period, dwarfing the between-gender differences. “ p. 909. Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland
2013 11
Imagine the 20th century
The percentage of cohort enrolled in HE
Males 2% Growth rate 3,5%Females 0,1% Growth rate 6%
a) Look at increments in the early years; which are bigger?
b) Look at the parity point, near 1980
c) Look at the growth after parity is reached
d) Note that a saturation curve is not shown, even though it should be
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013 12
3,5 6,0
Males Females1900 1,5 0,11905 2,0 0,21910 2,7 0,31915 3,7 0,41920 5,0 0,71925 6,7 1,01930 9,1 1,71935 12,3 2,71940 16,5 4,31945 22,3 6,91950 30,2 11,01955 40,7 17,61960 55,0 28,11965 74,2 45,01970 100,2 72,11975 135,2 115,31980 182,6 184,51985 246,5 295,11990 332,7 472,21995 449,2 755,62000 606,4 1208,92005 818,7 1934,32010 1105,2 3094,9
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013
13
0
500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500En
rolm
ent r
elati
ve to
coh
ort s
ize
Enrolment relative to cohort size. An example. Males start at 1,5% with 3,5% growth rate. Females start at 0,1% with 6% growth rate.
Females
Males
JTJ, Feb 2013
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013
14
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100En
rolm
ent r
elati
ve to
coh
ort s
ize
Enrolment relative to cohort size. An example. Males start at 1,5% with 3,5% growth rate. Females start at 0,1% with 6% growth rate.
Females
Males
JTJ, Feb 2013
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013
15
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500En
rolm
ent r
elati
ve to
coh
ort s
ize
Enrolment relative to cohort size. An example. Males start at 1,5% with 3,5% growth rate. Females start at 0,1% with 6% growth rate.
Females
Males
JTJ, Feb 2013
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013
16
0
500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500En
rolm
ent r
elati
ve to
coh
ort s
ize
Enrolment relative to cohort size. An example. Males start at 1,5% with 3,5% growth rate. Females start at 0,1% with 6% growth rate.
Females
Males
JTJ, Feb 2013
Provisional conclusion:a) The gender gap may sometimes be fundamentally
misinterpreted. It is most simply interpreted as the growth of two quite distinct populations, with different aspirations and interests. They operate as if in two different education systems. (See also Jónasson, 2003, for upper secondary education in the Nordic countries.)
b) This story is used to motivate the use of the growth coefficient in subsequent analysis.
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013 17
AgeThe expansion of education and the age of HE students
– How might cohort developments be interpreted? And what do they tell us about the HE system?
The age story: it is suggested that the growth of HE cannot be well understood until the growth of the different cohorts is analysed, preferably at different degree levels, where the gradual increased prevalence at the higher age levels comes to light. The consistence across cohorts also underpins a thesis that the growth is best described by an exponential curve, which fits with a credential story (looking at credentials as a consumable).
Note that the notion that HE education is attended by people in their early twenties is, by now, totally mistaken.
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013 18
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013
The age of students in Nordic HE (ISCED 5 and 6)% distribution (2010)
2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2009
Denmark Finland Åland Iceland Norway SwedenM F M F M F M F M F M F% % % % % % % % % % % %
15-19 2 2 4 4 3 4 1 1 4 5 6 6
20-24 42 45 40 40 57 35 42 35 48 44 43 3825-29 33 29 27 24 20 25 26 22 22 18 25 2030-39 18 17 19 19 15 21 20 23 15 16 16 1940+ 6 7 10 14 5 15 12 19 11 16 10 17
30+ 24 24 29 32 20 36 32 42 25 32 26 37Source: Nordic Statbank, feb 2013
19
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013 20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Gra
duati
on r
elati
ve to
coh
ort s
ize
%
Denmark. Graduation rates for gender and age groups for 1998-2011
Females Corrected for cohort size % Denmark 25-29 years
Males Corrected for cohort size % Denmark 25-29 years
Females Corrected for cohort size % Denmark 20-24 years
Males Corrected for cohort size % Denmark 20-24 years
Females Corrected for cohort size % Denmark 30-39 years
Males Corrected for cohort size % Denmark 30-39 years
Females Corrected for cohort size % Denmark 40-49 years
Males Corrected for cohort size % Denmark 40-49 years
Nordic Statbank Feb 2013 /JTJ
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013 21
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Gra
duati
on r
elati
ve to
coh
ort s
ize
%
Finland. Graduation rates for gender and age groups for 1998-2011
Females Corrected for cohort size % Finland 25-29 years
Males Corrected for cohort size % Finland 25-29 years
Females Corrected for cohort size % Finland 20-24 years
Males Corrected for cohort size % Finland 20-24 years
Females Corrected for cohort size % Finland 30-39 years
Males Corrected for cohort size % Finland 30-39 years
Females Corrected for cohort size % Finland 40-49 years
Males Corrected for cohort size % Finland 40-49 years
Nordic Statbank Feb 2013 /JTJ
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013 22
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Gra
duati
on r
elati
ve to
coh
ort s
ize
%
Norway. Graduation rates for gender and age groups for 1998-2011
Females Corrected for cohort size % Norway 25-29 years
Males Corrected for cohort size % Norway 25-29 years
Females Corrected for cohort size % Norway 20-24 years
Males Corrected for cohort size % Norway 20-24 years
Females Corrected for cohort size % Norway 30-39 years
Males Corrected for cohort size % Norway 30-39 years
Females Corrected for cohort size % Norway 40-49 years
Males Corrected for cohort size % Norway 40-49 years
Nordic Statbank Feb 2013 /JTJ
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Gra
duati
on r
elati
ve to
coh
ort s
ize
%
Iceland. Graduation rates for gender and age groups for 1998-2011
Females Corrected for cohort size % Iceland 25-29 years
Males Corrected for cohort size % Iceland 25-29 years
Females Corrected for cohort size % Iceland 20-24 years
Males Corrected for cohort size % Iceland 20-24 years
Females Corrected for cohort size % Iceland 30-39 years
Males Corrected for cohort size % Iceland 30-39 years
Females Corrected for cohort size % Iceland 40-49 years
Males Corrected for cohort size % Iceland 40-49 years
Nordic Statbank Feb 2013 /JTJ
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013 23
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Gra
duati
on r
elati
ve to
coh
ort s
ize
%
Norway. Graduation rates for gender and age groups for 1998-2011
Females Corrected for cohort size % Norway 25-29 years
Males Corrected for cohort size % Norway 25-29 years
Females Corrected for cohort size % Norway 20-24 years
Males Corrected for cohort size % Norway 20-24 years
Females Corrected for cohort size % Norway 30-39 years
Males Corrected for cohort size % Norway 30-39 years
Females Corrected for cohort size % Norway 40-49 years
Males Corrected for cohort size % Norway 40-49 years
Nordic Statbank Feb 2013 /JTJ
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013 24
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Gra
duati
on r
elati
ve to
coh
ort s
ize
%
Sweden. Graduation rates for gender and age groups for 1998-2011
Females Corrected for cohort size % Sweden 25-29 years
Males Corrected for cohort size % Sweden 25-29 years
Females Corrected for cohort size % Sweden 20-24 years
Males Corrected for cohort size % Sweden 20-24 years
Females Corrected for cohort size % Sweden 30-39 years
Males Corrected for cohort size % Sweden 30-39 years
Females Corrected for cohort size % Sweden 40-49 years
Males Corrected for cohort size % Sweden 40-49 years
Nordic Statbank Feb 2013 /JTJ
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013 25
0
0,02
0,04
0,06
0,08
0,1
0,12
0,14
0,16
20-24 years 25-29 years 30-39 years
Gro
wth
coeffi
cien
t, be
st fi
t to
expo
nenti
al g
row
th
Five Nordic countries. Growth coefficients for graduation for gender and age groups for 1998-2011
Finland Females
Iceland Females
Denmark Females
Norway Females
Sweden Females
Nordic Statbank Feb 2013 /JTJ
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013 26
-0,04
-0,02
0
0,02
0,04
0,06
0,08
0,1
0,12
0,14
0,16
20-24 years 25-29 years 30-39 yearsGro
wth
coeffi
cien
t, be
st fi
t to
expo
nenti
al g
row
th
Five Nordic countries. Growth coefficients for graduation for gender and age groups for 1998-2011
Finland Males
Iceland Males
Denmark Males
Norway Males
Sweden Males
Nordic Statbank Feb 2013 /JTJ
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013 27
y = A2e0,0283x
y = A1e0,0518x
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,519
78
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
Prop
ortio
n of
gra
duat
es (
%of
coh
ort s
ize)
The proportion of the 25 year old cohort graduating with a 3-3,5 year degree during 1978-2010, shown separately for males and females
3 - 3,5 år män 25 år
3 - 3,5 år kvinnor 25 år
Expon. (3 - 3,5 år män 25 år)
Expon. (3 - 3,5 år kvinnor 25 år)
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013 28
0
0,01
0,02
0,03
0,04
0,05
0,06
0,07
0,08
0,09
0,1
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
Expo
nent
s fitt
ed fo
r exp
onen
tial g
row
th fo
r diff
eren
t age
gro
ups
Age at graduation
Sweden: Growth exponents for graduation at different ages corrected for cohort size for the period 1978-2010
3 - 3,5 years Females
3 - 3,5 years Males
Invariance
a) Invariance is a relative term
b) Invariance and Nordic invariance– Are the Nordic countries similar to each other in the
way HE grows?– Are the Nordic countries in some way different from
other countries?
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013 29
Expansion of HE systems – The Nordic countries
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013 30
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
University students (classified broadly) in the Nordic countries based on cohorts aged 20-24
Finland
Iceland
Norway
Sweden
Denmark
OECD
Using OECD data as reference material
a) Enrolment corrected for cohort sizeb) Growth coefficients
c) Problem: Short time series
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013 31
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013
32
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10Ko
rea
Gre
ece
Finl
and
Uni
ted
Stat
es
New
Zea
land
Pola
nd
Aus
tral
ia
Irel
and
Turk
ey
Spai
n
Swed
en
Nor
way
Hun
gary
Icel
and
Belg
ium
Den
mar
k
Net
herl
ands
Japa
n
Uni
ted
King
dom
Port
ugal
Cana
da
Czec
h Re
publ
ic
Fran
ce
Slov
ak R
epub
lic
Aus
tria
Switz
erla
nd
Italy
Ger
man
y
Mex
ico
Enro
lmen
t cor
rect
ed fo
r coh
ort s
ize
Gender: Enrolment in tertiray education in OECD countries averaged for the years 2002-2010 controlled for cohort size
All ages Males Total tertiary education Average corrected enrolment
All ages Females Total tertiary education Average corrected enrolment
All ages Diff Females-Males Total tertiary education
Source: OECD data base. Feb 2013 /JTJ
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013
33
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10U
nite
d St
ates
Icel
and
New
Zea
land
Pola
nd
Finl
and
Aus
tral
ia
Gre
ece
Nor
way
Swed
en
Kore
a
Irel
and
Den
mar
k
Hun
gary
Spai
n
Cana
da
Uni
ted
King
dom
Slov
ak R
epub
lic
Belg
ium
Port
ugal
Italy
Fran
ce
Czec
h Re
publ
ic
Net
herl
ands
Aus
tria
Turk
ey
Japa
n
Ger
man
y
Switz
erla
nd
Mex
ico
Enro
lmen
t cor
rect
ed fo
r coh
ort s
ize
Gender: Enrolment in tertiray education in OECD countries averaged for the years 2002-2010 controlled for cohort size
All ages Males Total tertiary education Average corrected enrolment
All ages Females Total tertiary education Average corrected enrolment
All ages Diff Females-Males Total tertiary education
Source: OECD data base. Feb 2013 /JTJ
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013
34
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10Ic
elan
d
Nor
way
Swed
en
New
Zea
land
Uni
ted
Stat
es
Pola
nd
Den
mar
k
Cana
da
Aus
tral
ia
Uni
ted
King
dom
Slov
ak R
epub
lic
Irel
and
Hun
gary
Italy
Finl
and
Fran
ce
Belg
ium
Spai
n
Port
ugal
Czec
h Re
publ
ic
Aus
tria
Net
herl
ands
Gre
ece
Mex
ico
Ger
man
y
Switz
erla
nd
Japa
n
Turk
ey
Kore
a
Enro
lmen
t cor
rect
ed fo
r coh
ort s
ize
Gender difference: Enrolment in tertiray education in OECD countries averaged for the years 2002-2010 controlled for cohort size
All ages Males Total tertiary education Average corrected enrolment
All ages Females Total tertiary education Average corrected enrolment
All ages Diff Femlaes-Males Total tertiary education
Source: OECD data base. Feb 2013 /JTJ
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013
35
-0,04
-0,02
0
0,02
0,04
0,06
0,08
0,1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8Sl
ovak
Rep
ublic
Czec
h Re
publ
ic
Switz
erla
nd
Aus
tria
Icel
and
Net
herl
ands
Mex
ico
New
Zea
land
Den
mar
k
Ger
man
y
Belg
ium
Aus
tral
ia
Uni
ted
Stat
es
Gre
ece
Pola
nd
Hun
gary
Kore
a
Uni
ted
King
dom
Swed
en
Nor
way
Italy
Finl
and
Japa
n
Fran
ce
Spai
n
Irel
and
Port
ugal
Coeffi
cien
t for
for e
xpon
entti
al b
est fi
t
Enro
lmen
t cor
rect
for c
ohor
t siz
eFemales: Enrolment and the best fit for the growth slopes of enrolment in
OECD countries
All ages Females Total tertiary education Average corrected enrolment
All ages Females Total tertiary education Best fit exponential growth
InstitutionsInstitutional difference
The expansion of education within types of education– How do the above patterns apply to different levels of HE?
The data for different institutions will throw light on a suggestion that a strong force pushing the colleges towards universities may be largely due to the students voting with their feet. They want vocational or professional degrees, but only provided that their status is high enough. So if the status differential is too high (as they perceive it) they prefer the university even if they would prefer the professional degree. The only response to this is to enhance the status of the institutions giving the professional degrees. Here the reference is to implicit mechanisms that can only be discerned if one looks at trends over very long times.
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013 36
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013
37
0,00
0,01
0,02
0,03
0,04
0,05
0,06
0,07
20-24 years
25-29 years
30-34 years
35-39 years
Gro
wth
coe
ffici
cent
, ave
rage
of
expo
nenti
al fi
t
Student enrolment growth corrected for cohort size. OECD average growth coefficients for 2002-2010,for different age groups; 19
countries all with all data points; all given the same weight.
Females Advanced research programmes
Females Total tertiary education
Males Advanced research programmes
Males Total tertiary education
Source OECD Educational database feb 2013 / JTJ
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013 38
0
0,01
0,02
0,03
0,04
0,05
0,06
0,07
0,08
0,09
0,1
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
Expo
nent
s fitt
ed fo
r exp
onen
tial g
row
th fo
r diff
eren
t age
gro
ups
Age at graduation
Sweden: Growth exponents for graduation at different ages corrected for cohort size for the period 1978-2010
4 - 4,5 years Females
4 - 4,5 years Males
3 - 3,5 years Females
3 - 3,5 years Males
Conclusions a) Gender patterns are sensibly interpreted as robust invariant
growth, different for the two sexes
b) Apparently not different in the Nordic countries from what can be seen in a number of other countries, neither in terms of absolute enrolment numbers, gender differences or growth coefficients.
c) Growth of older cohorts is noticeable but apparently not special for the Nordic countries.
d) There are signs of institutional differences in terms of growth rates, but it is not clear if there is anything specially Nordic in this respect.
e) There are signs that the gender, age and institutional patterns are in essence universal, even though there are quite sizable country variations.
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013 39
Thank you
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013 40
Expansion of HE systems – Three different systems
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013 41
Japan y = 3e0,0423x
USA y = 16e0,034x
Iceland y = 3e0,0454x
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
University enrollment expressed as a percentage of average cohort size
Japan University students Males and females corrected for average of 18-22 cohort
USA University students Males and females corrected for average of 20-24 cohort
Iceland University students in Iceland and abroad as % of average of 20-24 yr cohorts
Expon. (Japan University students Males and females corrected for average of 18-22 cohort )
Expon. (USA University students Males and females corrected for average of 20-24 cohort)
Expon. (Iceland University students in Iceland and abroad as % of average of 20-24 yr cohorts)
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013
42
Sweden: Examination profiles 1978-2004 for different female age groups: First examination 160 poang or
more (four years or more)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
180021
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40-49
50-59
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013
43
Sweden: Examination profiles 1978-2004 for different female age groups: First examination 160 poang or
more (four years or more)
y = 60,161e0,1035x
R2 = 0,9677
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40-49
50-59
Expon. (27)
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013
44
Sweden: Growth coefficients for examination profiles 1978-2004 for different female and male age groups: First examination 160 poang or more (four years or
more)Growth coefficients for each cohort at 160+ poang 1978-
2004 for males and females
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,222 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
40-4
9
50-5
9
Age of graduates
expo
nent
ial g
row
th c
oeff
fo
r ea
ch c
ohor
t
Growth females: Sweden
Growth males: Sweden
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013
45
Sweden: Growth coefficients for examination profiles 1978-2004 for different female and male age groups:
Three different levels of examination
-0,15
-0,1
-0,05
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
-49
50
-59
60
+
160- poäng kvinnor
160- poäng män
120-159 poäng kvinnor
120-159 poäng män
-119 poäng män
-119 poäng kvinnor
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013
46
Iceland: Growth coefficients for enrolment profiles 1978-2004 for different female and male age groups:
Examination level ISCED76 level 6
0
0,01
0,02
0,03
0,04
0,05
0,06
0,07
0,08
0,0920 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30/3
4
35/3
9
40/4
9
50/6
4
ISCED76-6 F
ISCED76-6 M
Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013
47
Iceland: Growth coefficients for enrolment profiles 1978-2004 for different female and male age groups:
Examination level ISCED76 levels 6 and 7
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0,3
0,35
0,420 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30/3
4
35/3
9
40/4
9
50/6
4
ISCED76-7 F
ISCED76-7 M
ISCED76-6 F
ISCED76-6 M
top related