nera, the nordic educational research association school of education at the university of iceland...

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 [email protected] Haley, School of Education, University of Iceland ,

Jón Torfi Jónasson Aimee Haley NERA Iceland 2013 1

mailto:[email protected]

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.


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.


HE education growing on a world scaleBased on Schofer and Meyer 2005


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


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


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)




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)



Comparative growth rates, time and gender


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


“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


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


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


14

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100En

rolm

ent r

elati

ve to

coh

ort s

ize


Females

Males

JTJ, Feb 2013


15

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500En

rolm

ent r

elati

ve to

coh

ort s

ize


Females

Males

JTJ, Feb 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


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.


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.



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


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







Nordic Statbank Feb 2013 /JTJ


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









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








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









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











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









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



-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



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)


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?


Expansion of HE systems – The Nordic countries


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



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


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 Diff Females-Males Total tertiary education



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 Diff Femlaes-Males Total tertiary education



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 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.



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


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 Males


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.


Thank you


Expansion of HE systems – Three different systems


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)


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


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)


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


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


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


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

nera, the nordic educational research association school of education at the university of iceland...

Documents

perspective of gender

gender gapthe gender

gender differences

rates of growth

nordic countries

gender story

genderthe gender perspective

educational expansion