Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
    • Supplementary Material
    • Free Issue
    • Special Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Institutions
    • Advertisers
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
  • Connect
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • Request JHR at your library
    • Alerts
  • Announcements
  • Special Issue
  • Other Publications
    • UW Press Journals

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Human Resources
  • Other Publications
    • UW Press Journals
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Human Resources

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
    • Supplementary Material
    • Free Issue
    • Special Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Institutions
    • Advertisers
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
  • Connect
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • Request JHR at your library
    • Alerts
  • Announcements
  • Special Issue
  • Follow uwp on Twitter
  • Follow JHR on Bluesky
Research ArticleArticles
Open Access

Leaving Boys Behind

Gender Disparities in High Academic Achievement

Nicole M. Fortin, Philip Oreopoulos and Shelley Phipps
Journal of Human Resources, July 2015, 50 (3) 549-579; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.50.3.549
Nicole M. Fortin
Nicole Fortin is professor of economics at the Vancouver School of Economics, University of British Columbia. Philip Oreopoulos is professor of economics at the University of Toronto. Shelley Phipps is professor of economics at Dalhousie University. All co-authors are Senior Research Fellows at the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Philip Oreopoulos
Nicole Fortin is professor of economics at the Vancouver School of Economics, University of British Columbia. Philip Oreopoulos is professor of economics at the University of Toronto. Shelley Phipps is professor of economics at Dalhousie University. All co-authors are Senior Research Fellows at the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Shelley Phipps
Nicole Fortin is professor of economics at the Vancouver School of Economics, University of British Columbia. Philip Oreopoulos is professor of economics at the University of Toronto. Shelley Phipps is professor of economics at Dalhousie University. All co-authors are Senior Research Fellows at the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Self-Reported Grades of High School Seniors by Gender Notes: In top panel, self-reported grades in nine categories (D, C-, C, C+, B-, B, B+, A-, A) are translated into the numbers 1, 1.7, 2, 2.3, 2.7, 3, 3.3, 3.7, and 4 following standard institutional practice.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1

    Self-Reported Grades of High School Seniors by Gender

    Notes: In top panel, self-reported grades in nine categories (D, C-, C, C+, B-, B, B+, A-, A) are translated into the numbers 1, 1.7, 2, 2.3, 2.7, 3, 3.3, 3.7, and 4 following standard institutional practice.

  • Educational Expectations of High School Students
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2

    Educational Expectations of High School Students

  • Male and Female Densities of Self-Reported Grades Among Twelfth Graders Notes: Average grades are indicated by vertical line. Histogram that corresponds to actual data is overlaid with a kernel density.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3

    Male and Female Densities of Self-Reported Grades Among Twelfth Graders

    Notes: Average grades are indicated by vertical line. Histogram that corresponds to actual data is overlaid with a kernel density.

  • Male and Female Densities of Self-Reported Grades Among Eighth Graders Notes: Average grades are indicated by vertical line. Histogram that corresponds to actual data is overlaid with a kernel density.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4

    Male and Female Densities of Self-Reported Grades Among Eighth Graders

    Notes: Average grades are indicated by vertical line. Histogram that corresponds to actual data is overlaid with a kernel density.

  • Detailed Decomposition of Gender Differences in GPA Levels Among Twelfth Graders Notes: Self-reported grades in nine categories (D, C-, C, C+, B-, B, B+, A-, A) are translated into the numbers 1, 1.7, 2, 2.3, 2.7, 3, 3.3, 3.7, and 4 following standard institutional practice. The female advantage represents the gender difference (female minus male) in the percentage of students at each GPA level. The lines in the figure show the raw gender differences; the different shaded bars indicate portions attributable to Composition or Educational Responses effects.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5

    Detailed Decomposition of Gender Differences in GPA Levels Among Twelfth Graders

    Notes: Self-reported grades in nine categories (D, C-, C, C+, B-, B, B+, A-, A) are translated into the numbers 1, 1.7, 2, 2.3, 2.7, 3, 3.3, 3.7, and 4 following standard institutional practice. The female advantage represents the gender difference (female minus male) in the percentage of students at each GPA level. The lines in the figure show the raw gender differences; the different shaded bars indicate portions attributable to Composition or Educational Responses effects.

  • Detailed Decomposition of Gender Differences in GPA Levels Among Eighth Graders Notes: Self-reported grades in nine categories (D, C-, C, C+, B-, B, B+, A-, A) are translated into the numbers 1, 1.7, 2, 2.3, 2.7, 3, 3.3, 3.7, and 4 following standard institutional practice. The female advantage represents the gender difference (female minus male) in the percentage of students at each GPA level. The lines in the figure show the raw gender differences; the different shaded bars indicate portions attributable to Composition or Educational Responses effects.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6

    Detailed Decomposition of Gender Differences in GPA Levels Among Eighth Graders

    Notes: Self-reported grades in nine categories (D, C-, C, C+, B-, B, B+, A-, A) are translated into the numbers 1, 1.7, 2, 2.3, 2.7, 3, 3.3, 3.7, and 4 following standard institutional practice. The female advantage represents the gender difference (female minus male) in the percentage of students at each GPA level. The lines in the figure show the raw gender differences; the different shaded bars indicate portions attributable to Composition or Educational Responses effects.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Vocational Expectations of Twelfth Graders by Gender

    Years1976–881989–992000–2009
    Kind of Work Respondent Thinks Will Be Doing at Age 30BoysGirlsBoysGirlsBoysGirls
    Percentage in the labor forcea99.993.299.797.799.698.3
    Laborer, service worker, sales clerk2.17.51.64.12.44.2
    Skilled or semiskilled worker, Protective services (including military), farm owner37.64.430.54.827.45.0
    Clerical or office worker1.721.01.29.00.92.7
    Owner of small business, sales representative, manager or administrator17.314.417.913.516.912.8
    Professional without doctoral degreeb27.937.432.142.236.148.3
    Professional with doctoral degree (or equivalent)c13.515.316.726.416.427.1
    Total in the labor force100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0
    Number of observations18,36919,34311,66712,5609,24210,396
    • Notes: Module 4 respondents were asked “What kind of work do you think that you will be doing when you are 30 years old? Mark the one that comes closest to what you expect to be doing.” Sixteen choices were possible including “Full-time homemaker” and “Don’t know” (6.7 percent of respondents). We regroup the 14 other choices into six categories for conciseness. More examples of specific jobs were given than reported.

    • ↵aComputed as 100 minus the percentage of respondents choosing “Full-time homemaker or housewife.

    • ↵bRegistered Nurse, Librarian, Engineer, Architect, Social Worker, Technician, Accountant, Actor, Artist, Musician given as examples.

    • ↵cLawyer, Physician, Dentist, Scientist, College Professor given as examples.

    • View popup
    Table 2

    Difference-and-Differences Estimates in Academic Performance and Plans for the Future - Twelfth Graders

    Time Period1976–88
    (1)
    1989–99
    (2)
    Change over Time (2) – (1)
    (3)
    2000–2009
    (4)
    Change over Time (4) – (2)
    (5)
    Change over Time (4) – (1)
    (6)
    A: Average grades
    Girls3.004
    (0.002)
    3.106
    (0.002)
    0.102
    (0.003)
    3.218
    (0.003)
    0.112
    (0.003)
    0.214
    (0.003)
    Boys2.804
    (0.002)
    2.907
    (0.002)
    0.103
    (0.003)
    3.030
    (0.003)
    0.123
    (0.004)
    0.225
    (0.003)
    Difference0.200
    (0.003)
    0.199
    (0.003)
    −0.001
    (0.004)
    0.189
    (0.004)
    −0.010
    (0.005)
    −0.011
    (0.005)
    B: Proportion with A grade
    Girls0.100
    (0.001)
    0.143
    (0.004)
    0.043
    (0.001)
    0.192
    (0.004)
    0.048
    (0.002)
    0.091
    (0.002)
    Boys0.069
    (0.001)
    0.099
    (0.001)
    0.030
    (0.001)
    0.137
    (0.001)
    0.038
    (0.002)
    0.068
    (0.001)
    Difference0.032
    (0.002)
    0.044
    (0.002)
    0.012
    (0.002)
    0.054
    (0.003)
    0.011
    (0.003)
    0.023
    (0.002)
    C: Proportion definitely will attend graduate or professional school3
    Girls0.101
    (0.001)
    0.205
    (0.001)
    0.104
    (0.002)
    0.249
    (0.002)
    0.044
    (0.002)
    0.147
    (0.002)
    Boys0.099
    (0.001)
    0.150
    (0.001)
    0.051
    (0.002)
    0.168
    (0.001)
    0.018
    (0.002)
    0.069
    (0.002)
    Difference0.003
    (0.002)
    0.055
    (0.002)
    0.053
    (0.002)
    0.081
    (0.003)
    0.026
    (0.003)
    0.078
    (0.002)
    Number of observations207,152160,403118,173
    • Notes: Self-reported grades in nine categories (D, C−, C, C+, B−, B, B+, A−, A) are translated into the numbers 1, 1.7, 2, 2.3, 2.7, 3, 3.3, 3.7, and 4 following standard institutional practice.

    • a The numbers for other post-secondary choices are reported in Table 3.

    • View popup
    Table 3

    Means of Selected Core Variables by Gender— Twelfth Graders

    Core Variables1976–881989–992000–2009
    BoysGirlsBoysGirlsBoysGirls
    Subjective school ability index0.6520.6510.6580.6540.6640.658*
    Educational expectations: Index of likeliness to attenda
        Army0.2810.102*0.2150.078*0.2020.079*
        Vocational0.3190.264*0.2680.210*0.2740.208*
        Two-year college0.3380.364*0.3620.370*0.3830.386
        Four-year college0.5840.5850.7020.758*0.7370.816*
        Graduate or professional0.3890.385*0.4710.530*0.4900.571*
    Education aspirations: Want to attend dummy
        Army0.2030.092*0.1770.079*0.1790.078*
        Vocational0.2840.219*0.2070.141*0.2030.124*
        Two-year college0.2060.293*0.2140.256*0.2400.266*
        Four-year college0.6350.650*0.7440.810*0.7730.850*
        Graduate or professional0.4160.432*0.5290.613*0.5190.625*
    High school program:
        Academic0.4870.514*0.5500.611*0.5180.589*
        General0.3000.307*0.2830.272*0.3280.298*
        Vocational0.1550.120*0.1070.068*0.0810.049*
        Other0.0590.0600.0590.049*0.0730.065*
        Cigarette smoking: less than one-half pack0.2120.260*0.2580.2600.2170.201*
        Alcohol binging last two weeks: two to nine times0.3070.167*0.2310.127*0.1970.121*
        Father not same household0.1690.185*0.2010.228*0.2070.244*
        Mother working all the time0.2010.234*0.3530.398*0.4620.495*
        Father: some high school0.1450.154*0.1010.110*0.0980.108*
        Father: completed college0.1900.176*0.2300.214*0.2530.225*
        Mother: some high school0.1260.149*0.0820.101*0.0710.082*
        Mother: completed college0.1640.146*0.2340.211*0.2900.257*
        Works over school year Number of observations0.8480.798*0.8010.792*0.7550.756
        Works over school year Number of observations74,23079,94260,46966,87550,54957,202
    • Notes: Asterisk indicates statistically significant gender difference at the 5 percent level. Means of other variables and other categories are reported in Fortin, Oreopoulos, and Phipps (2013).

    • ↵a The four categories of likeliness are: definitively won’t, probably won’t, probably will, definitively will.

    • View popup
    Table 4a

    Selected Coefficients of LPM on Specific Grades - Twelfth Graders 2000–2009

    Dependent variable: A (93–100 percent) × 100Specification 1Specification 2
    Explanatory variablesBoysGirlsBoysGirls
    Subjective school ability44.46(53.8)70.88(72.7)
    Educational expectationsa
        Army−2.33(4.5)−0.13(−0.2)0.31(0.5)2.34(2.4)
        Vocational−3.95(−7.2)−3.93(−6.5)−3.52(−5.6)−3.94(−5.7)
        Two-year college−9.95(−22.0)−11.41(−24.5)−7.54 (−14.5)−7.04(−12.7)
        Four-year college3.67(6.1)4.38(6.4)0.15(0.2)0.57(0.8)
    Graduate or professional13.71(24.6)10.40(18.5)8.66(14.1)4.10(6.4)
    Education aspirationsb
        Army−2.51(−5.1)−2.21(−3.1)
        Vocational−0.14(−0.3)1.15(1.9)
        Two-year college0.24(0.5)−0.20(−0.4)
        Four-year college−1.74(−4.0)−1.32(−2.5)
        Graduate or professional1.64(4.3)2.07(5.0)
    High school program
        Academic5.90(9.4)9.09(13.0)1.29(2.1)2.01(3.0)
        General−1.43(−2.3)−0.29(−0.4)−2.83(−4.7)−1.89(−2.8)
        Vocational2.47(3.1)4.78(9.4)−0.25(−0.3)1.33(1.4)
    Cigarette smoking: less than one-half pack−4.93(−12.4)−7.79(−17.7)−3.64(−9.4)−6.11(−14.5)
    Alcohol binging last two weeks: two to nine times−4.98(−12.0)−5.25(−9.8)−4.66 (−11.6)−4.01(−7.8)
    Father not same household−1.23(−3.1)−2.32(−5.7)−0.87(−2.2)−1.89(−4.9)
    Mother working: all the time−3.86(−8.3)−4.76(−9.5)−3.51(−7.8)−3.84(−8.0)
    Father: completed college0.91(2.0)2.88(6.0)0.13(0.3)1.71(3.7)
    Mother: completed college1.42(3.3)2.94(6.3)0.66(1.6)1.45(3.2)
    Works over school year−3.09(−2.6)0.32(0.2)−2.21(−1.9)2.14(1.5)
    Constant25.24(28.4)28.76(29.6)−1.31(−1.3)−13.36(−11.4)
    R-squared0.120.130.170.20
    Number of observations49,32856,15649,32856,156
    • Notes: Dependent variable is set to 100 if the student has a GPA of 4, and to 0 otherwise. T-statistics are in parentheses. The base group for Alcohol binging and Cigarette smoking is none, Mother working is not working, Father’s and Mother’s education is high school, for High school program is other. The coefficients of the other variables and categories included in the regression are reported in Fortin, Oreopoulos, and Phipps (2013).

    • ↵a Index of educational expectations constructed from the four categories: definitively won’t, probably won’t, probably will, definitively will.

    • ↵b Educational aspirations measured with binary variable: want to attend.

    • View popup
    Table 4b

    Selected Coefficients of LPM on Specific Grades - Twelfth Graders 2000–2009

    Dependent variable: C+ (77–79 percent) × 100Specification 1Specification 2
    Explanatory variablesBoysGirlsBoysGirls
    Subjective school ability−20.70(−28.2)−20.59(−31.8)
    Educational expectationsa
        Army2.33(5.2)0.47(0.9)2.30(4.0)0.13(0.2)
        Vocational0.37(1.0)0.88(2.3)0.13(0.2)0.17(0.2)
        Two-year college5.95(15.2)3.45(11.6)4.88(10.6)2.00(5.4)
        Four-year college−5.34(−10.2)−3.37(−7.7)−4.02(−6.9)−1.39(−2.8)
        Graduate or professional−5.10(−10.6)−3.12(−8.6)−2.76(−5.1)−1.61(−3.8)
    Education aspirationsb
        Army−0.29(−0.7)0.29(0.6)
        Vocational0.24(0.6)0.73(1.8)
        Two-year college−0.29(−0.8)0.49(1.6)
        Four-year college1.30(3.4)−0.76(−2.2)
        Graduate or professional−0.77(−2.3)−0.15(−0.5)
    High school program
        Academic−4.47(−8.2)−5.98(−13.4)−2.34(−4.3)−3.90(−8.7)
        General−0.18(−0.3)−1.91(−4.2)0.45(0.8)−1.42(−3.2)
        Vocational−1.72(−2.5)−1.51(−2.4)−0.46(−0.7)−0.64(−1.0)
    Cigarette smoking: less than one-half pack1.87(5.4)2.94(10.4)1.27(3.7)2.43(8.7)
    Alcohol binging last 2 weeks: two to nine times1.53(4.3)1.71(5.0)1.37(3.4)1.36(4.0)
    Father not same household1.04(3.0)1.73(6.6)0.87(2.5)1.59(6.2)
    Mother working: all the time1.54(3.8)1.51(4.7)1.38(3.4)1.27(3.4)
    Father: some high school0.83(1.6)2.12(5.6)0.62(1.3)1.88(5.0)
    Mother: some high school1.50(2.6)0.71(1.7)1.29(2.3)0.55(1.3)
    Works over school year1.00(1.0)2.28(2.4)0.60(0.6)1.71(1.8)
    Constant7.88(10.2)6.90(11.1)20.07(21.5)19.54(25.1)
    R-squared0.050.050.070.07
    Number of observations49,32856,15649,32856,156
    • Notes: Dependent variable is set to 100 if the student has a GPA of 2.3, and to 0 otherwise. T-statistics are in parentheses. The base group for Alcohol binging and Cigarette smoking is none, Mother working is not working, Father’s and Mother’s education is high school, for High school program is other. The coefficients of the other variables and categories included in the regression are reported in Fortin, Oreopoulos, and Phipps (2013).

    • ↵a Index of educational expectations constructed from the four categories: definitively won’t, probably won’t, probably will, definitively will.

    • ↵b Educational aspirations measured with binary variable: want to attend.

    • View popup
    Table 5

    Detailed Decomposition Results - Percentage Female/Male Difference for Selected GPA Levels

    2000–2009Twelfth Graders: Specification 1Twelfth Graders: Specification 2Eighth Graders
    A (93–100)C+ (77–79)A (93–100)C+ (77–79)A (93–100)C+ (77–79)
    Total differential6.06 (0.007)−3.15 (0.005)6.06 (0.007)−3.15 (0.005)5.96 (0.007)−1.48 (0.005)
    Composition effects Total explained2.40 (0.004)−1.22 (0.003)1.03 (0.004)−0.59 (0.003)2.21 (0.004)−0.86 (0.003)
    Own school ability−0.46 (0.002)0.22(0.001)−0.63 (0.001)0.10(0.001)
    Educational expectations2.03 (0.003)−1.19(0.003)1.21 (0.003)−0.81 (0.003)1.53 (0.003)−0.53 (0.002)
    High school program0.38 (0.001)−0.26 (0.001)0.19(0.001)−0.16(0.001)0.52 (0.001)−0.14(0.001)
    Smoking, binging0.56 (0.001)−0.20 (0.001)0.49(0.001)−0.16(0.001)1.29(0.002)−0.54(0.002)
    Race, SMSA−0.29 (0.001)0.25 (0.001)−0.23 (0.001)0.22 (0.001)−0.16(0.001)0.13 (0.000)
    Family background−0.35 (0.001)0.19(0.001)−0.23 (0.001)0.14 (0.001)−0.31 (0.001)0.18(0.001)
    Work0.06 (0.001)−0.03 (0.001)0.08 (0.001)−0.04(0.001)−0.02 (0.001)−0.06 (0.001)
    Specification error−0.01 (0.008)0.10(0.006)−0.05 (0.007)0.11 (0.006)0.19(0.007)−0.32 (0.006)
    Educational responses
    Total unexplained3.59 (0.007)−1.93 (0.005)4.80 (0.007)−2.49 (0.005)3.07 (0.007)−0.09 (0.005)
    Own school ability−0.09 (0.001)0.01 (0.000)−0.10(0.002)0.14 (0.002)
    Educational expectations−0.12(0.002)0.15(0.002)1.08 (0.021)−1.33 (0.016)−0.21 (0.002)0.10 (0.002)
    High school program2.65 (0.028)−0.91 (0.020)1.41 (0.027)−1.50 (0.020)1.53 (0.008)−0.07 (0.006)
    Smoking, binging−0.47 (0.005)0.34 (0.003)−0.33 (0.005)0.32 (0.003)−0.04 (0.004)0.35 (0.003)
    Race, SMSA−1.41 (0.013)−0.49 (0.009)−1.51 (0.013)−0.51 (0.009)−0.69 (0.013)−0.38 (0.009)
    Family background1.59 (0.027)0.31 (0.019)1.09 (0.025)0.71 (0.019)1.54 (0.021)0.73 (0.015)
    Work1.59 (0.013)0.30 (0.009)1.62 (0.012)0.09 (0.009)0.46 (0.006)−0.04 (0.004)
    Constant−0.24 (0.043)−1.64 (0.030)1.54 (0.045)−0.27 (0.034)0.57 (0.021)−0.91 (0.020)
    Reweighting error0.08 (0.003)−0.10(0.001)0.28 (0.003)−0.19(0.001)0.50 (0.003)−0.21 (0.001)
    • Notes: Standard errors are in parentheses. Reweighted decomposition follows methodology of Section IV. The A (93–100) and C+ (77–79) correspond to the GPA level 4 and 2.3, respectively, in the Figures. In Specification 2, educational aspirations are included among the variables in the Educational expectations category.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Human Resources: 50 (3)
Journal of Human Resources
Vol. 50, Issue 3
1 Jul 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Human Resources.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Leaving Boys Behind
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Human Resources
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Human Resources web site.
Citation Tools
Leaving Boys Behind
Nicole M. Fortin, Philip Oreopoulos, Shelley Phipps
Journal of Human Resources Jul 2015, 50 (3) 549-579; DOI: 10.3368/jhr.50.3.549

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Leaving Boys Behind
Nicole M. Fortin, Philip Oreopoulos, Shelley Phipps
Journal of Human Resources Jul 2015, 50 (3) 549-579; DOI: 10.3368/jhr.50.3.549
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • I. Introduction
    • II. Data and Descriptive Statistics
    • III. Empirical Specification and Reweighted Decomposition Methodology
    • IV. Empirical Results
    • V. Conclusion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Can Academic Redshirting Shrink the Education Gender Gap?: Causal Evidence on Student Achievement and Mental Health
  • First Impressions Matter: Evidence from Elementary School Teachers
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Monopsony, Efficiency, and the Regularization of Undocumented Immigrants
  • Migration, Segregation, and Interracial Marriage
  • Providers, Places, and Children’s Mental Health Care
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

UW Press logo

© 2026 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System

Powered by HighWire