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
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.
photo
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;
photo
role of social and cultural capital in university choice.
Higher School of Economics , Moscow, 2012
Objectives
Analysis of the differences in USE results for students from
different income groups.
Analysis of impact of income status (family income level) on
photo
the preparatory strategies of students;
their actual USE scores;
choice of university.
photo
Higher School of Economics , Moscow, 2012
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)
photo
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
Higher School of Economics , Moscow, 2012
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)
photothe
the difference in income between black and white students determines
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
photo
than richer students, irrespective of their achievement (Hearn, 1991)
Higher School of Economics , Moscow, 2012
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:
photo
introduced nationwide in 2009
two obligatory subjects: Russian (National language) and
Mathematics
extra preparation is possible
photo
two ‘waves’ in admission process
Higher School of Economics , Moscow, 2012
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
17.6%
34.8%
Low income
Medium income
High income
47.6%
Higher School of Economics , Moscow, 2012
photo
Income level and USE scores
75
71.5
69.7
70
65.6
68
66.6
64
65
61.4
60
69.7
62.8
61.5
57.8
57.4
Low income
Medium income
55
High
income
photo
50
45
40
Russian
Higher School of Economics , Moscow, 2012
Mathematics
Obligatory
subjects
Overall average
result
photo
Differences in USE results under
fixed achievement (Mathematics)
90
85.3
85
80
75
70.8
70
68.1
65
60.7
60
55
67.5
65.2
52.1
Low income
Medium income
60.2
photo
High income
54.1
50
45
40
photo
Low achievers
Higher School of Economics , Moscow, 2012
Medium achievers
High achievers
Money expenditures on pre-entry coaching as a
mechanism of improving the USE results
3000
2466
2419
2500
2189
2000
1816
1523
1500
1000
1648
1459
1537
Low income
Medium income
Highphoto
income
796
500
0
Pre-entry courses
Higher School of Economics , Moscow, 2012
Lessons with tutors
Total investment
photo
Returns from extra preparation (regression
analysis)
photo
photo
Higher School of Economics , Moscow, 2012
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.
Dependent variable USE score in USE score in Average
USE Overall average
Russian
Mathematics score
in USE result
obligatory
Coefficients
subjects
αj (Crossing)
20.648***
-29.466***
-4.409
-32.576***
(7.755)
(9.657)
(8.026)
(8.566)
photo
βj (Income)
4.514***
(0.811)
9.371***
(1.010)
6.943***
(0.839)
9.892***
(0.893)
γj (Investment)
0.653***
(0.070)
0.406***
(0.087)
0.530***
(0.073)
0.423***
(0.075)
0.100
0.092
0.104
R2
Higher School of Economics , Moscow, 2012
0.154
photo
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.
Yij   j   j ln( 1  Total Investmenti )  ij
Dependent
variable
Income
group
USE score in USE score in Average USE Overall
Russian
Mathematics score
in average USE
obligatory
result
photo
subjects
Low
0.609***
-0.136
0.236**
-0.284***
Medium
0.607***
0.498***
0.552***
0.828***
High
0.999***
0.878***
0.938***
0.404**
photo
Higher School of Economics , Moscow, 2012
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.
Average USE
score
Level of income
Low
Medium
photo
Sample
High
41 - 60 points
27.5%
12.4%
7.6%
16.9%
61 - 80 points
68.7%
80.8%
80.3%
76.5%
81 - 100 points
3.9%
6.8%
12.1%
6.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
photo
Total
Higher School of Economics , Moscow, 2012
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.
photo
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
Higher School of Economics , Moscow, 2012
Conclusion
A positive relationship between the level of income and the
average USE score (indicator of college quality) for low achievers and
medium achievers is 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 concludephoto
that the
introduction of the USE has provided equal access to higher
education for all income groups of students.
photo
Higher School of Economics , Moscow, 2012
20, Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, Russia, 101000
Tel.: +7 (495) 628-8829, Fax: +7 (495) 628-7931
www.hse.ru