Females outperform males in educational attainment but remain significantly underrepresented in fields with high returns, most notably STEMM. This gender imbalance in educational choice can explain a large part of the gender wage gap, and a better understanding of how to narrow this gap is imperative for attaining gender wage parity.
35 We focus on the mother’s education and labor market outcomes when the child is 15 as this is when the daughter submits her high school application. If GP match has an impact on the mother’s education and labor market outcomes that indirectly affects the daughter, this is the age where one would expect to find an effect.
24
We use random assignment of children to general practitioners to examine if female role models can be used to eliminate some of the observed gender gap in educational choice. We test if girls who are randomly assigned and exposed to female GPs - a group of successful female STEMM role models - perform better in school and are more likely to pursue STEMM degrees, compared to girls assigned to male GPs. This is the first paper to study the effects of female role models in childhood on the long-run educational outcomes of girls. It is also the first paper to explore the effects of same-gender role model interactions outside the classroom.
We find that exposure to a female GP has a statistically significant and economically meaningful positive effect on the probability that girls pursue academic high school programs, graduate with STEMM degrees from high school, and choose STEMM majors at university. A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that female role models can close the gender gap in college STEMM choice by up to 20 percent. These effects fall within range of what has been identified in other settings (e.g. Breda et al. 2018; Porter and Serra 2019). The persistency of the role model effect is interesting given the “leaking pipeline” phenomenon - a metaphor for the loss of women in STEMM fields at every step of the career ladder.
We also document significant improvements in educational achievement among girls who are assigned to a female GP, both at the compulsory level and at the high school level. The fact that enrollment in more difficult education programs is accompanied by improved educational performance suggest that selection into STEMM programs does not lead to a deterioration of educational achievement, and that same-gender role models improve education matches. We do not find any effects of same-gender assignment on male education choices or performance.
The effects we identify are larger for girls with low-educated mothers, suggesting that same-gender role models may facilitate intergenerational occupational mobility, contributing to a long-standing debate on the intergenerational transmission of human capital and how to facilitate upward socioeconomic mobility (e.g. Black, Devereux and Salvanes 2005).
Performing unconditional quantile regressions reveal that it is high ability children with low-educated mothers that are driving our results. This suggests that female role models may help narrow the gifted gap for disadvantaged girls.
By tracing the individuals in our analysis sample through a range of medical registries in Norway we directly explore if our results operate through improved health, and by linking children to their parents through unique intergenerational family identifiers we explicitly examine if some of the estimate effects are operating through the mother. We find no evidence in favor of these alternative pathways: assignment to a same-gender GP has no impact on the
25
number of diagnoses, the likelihood of receiving a mental health diagnosis, the probability of visiting the GP for birth control reasons, or fertility. Assignment to same-gender GP also has no impact on the mother’s education and labor market outcomes. This suggests that the effects we identify likely are driven by direct role model influences between the GP and the child. The lack of a health-based non-role model channel is interesting as one of the main concerns with the existing research on same-gender role models in the classroom has been that it may represent differences in teaching practices rather than true role model effects.
Our results demonstrate that female role models can be successful in not only reducing the gender STEMM gap in educational choice in both high school and college, but also in raising the educational performance of females. These effects have important policy implications. Specifically, they imply that intentionally matching girls to female role models (doctors, professors, supervisors, mentors), and scaling up existing same-gender mentorship programs, may be effective policy tools for narrowing the gender gap in educational choice and labor market outcomes.
26
References
Bettinger, E., and B. Long (2005). “Do faculty serve as role models? The impact of instructor gender on female students” American Economic Review 95(2): pp. 152-157 Bhashkar, M. (2005). “Fortunate Sons: New Estimates of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States Using Social Security Earnings Data.” Review of Economics and Statistics 87 (2): pp. 235-255
Black, S., P. Devereux, and K. Salvanes (2005). “Why the apple doesn’t fall far:
understanding intergenerational transmission of human capital” American Economic Review 95(1): pp. 437-449
Blau, F., and L. Kahn (2017). “The gender wage gap: extent, trends, and explanations”
Journal of Economic Literature 55(3): pp. 789-865
Breda, T., J. Grenet, M. Monnet, and C. Van Effenterre (2018). ”Can female role models reduce the gender gap in science? Evidence from classroom interventions in French high schools” PSE Working papers No. 2018-06
Card, D., and A. Payne (2017). “High school choices and the gender gap in STEM” NBER Working Paper No. 23769
Carneiro P., and J. Heckman (2003). “Human Capital Policy.” In Heckman J., Krueger A.
(eds.), Inequality in America: What Role for Human Capital Policy? (MIT Press) Carrell, S., M. Page and J. West (2010). “Sex and science: how professor gender
perpetuates the gender gap” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 125 (3): pp. 1101-1144 Ceci, S., D. Ginther, S. Kahn and W. Williams (2014). “Women in academic science: a changing landscape” Psychological Science in the Public Interest 15(3): pp. 75-141 Chetty, R., and N. Hendren (2018). “The effects of neighborhoods on intergenerational mobility I: childhood exposure effects” Quarterly Journal of Economics 133(3): pp. 1107- 1162
Chetty, R., N. Hendren, and L. Katz (2015). “The effects of exposure to better
neighborhoods on children: new evidence from the moving to opportunity experiment”
Working Paper NBER 21156
Chung, K. (2000). “Role models and arguments for affirmative action” American Economic Review 90(3): pp. 640-648
27
Dee, T. (2005). “A teacher like me: does race, ethnicity, or gender matter?” American Economic Review 95(2): pp. 158-165
Dee, T. (2004). “Teachers, race, and student achievement in a randomized experiment” The Review of Economics and Statistics 86(1): pp. 195-210
Eble, A., and F. Hu (2017). “Stereotypes, role models, and the formation of beliefs” Mimeo.
Elango, S., and J. Garcia, J. Heckman and A. Hojman (2015). “Early Childhood
Education.” In Mofitt R. (editor), Economics of Means-Tested Transfer program in the United States (University of Chicago Press)
Firpo, S., N. Fortin, and T. Lemieux (2009). “Unconditional quantile regressions”
Econometrica 77 (3): pp. 953-973
Griffith, A. (2014). “Faculty gender in the college classroom: does it matter for achievement and major choice? Southern Economic Journal 49(3): pp. 730-749 Hill, A., D. Jones and L. Woodworth (2018). “A doctor like me: Physician-patient race- match and patient outcomes” Mimeo
Hoffmann, F., and P. Oreopoulos (2009). “A professor like me: the influence of instructor gender on college achievement” Journal of Human Resources 44(2): pp. 479-494
Hyde, J. (2005). “The gender similarities hypothesis” American Psychologist 60(6): pp. 581- 592
Ickovics, J., A. Carroll-Scott, S. Peters, M. Schwartz, K. Gilstad-Hayden and C.
McCaslin (2014). “Health and academic achievement: cumulative effects of health assets on standardized test scores among urban youth in the United States” Journal of School Health 84(1): pp. 40-48
Kofoed, M., and E. McGovney (2017). “The effect of same-gender and same-race role models on occupational choice: evidence from randomly assigned mentors at West Point”
Journal of Human Resources, 0416–7838r1
Lavy, V., and E. Sand (2015). “On the origins of gender human capital gaps: short and long term consequences of teachers’ stereotypical biases” NBER Working Paper No. 20909 Lim, J., and J. Meer (2017). “The impact of teacher-student gender matches: random assignment evidence from South Korea” NBER Working Paper No. 21407
Mansour, H., D. Rees, B. Rintala, N. Wozny (2018). “The effects of professor gender on the post-graduation outcome of female students” IZA DP No. 11820
28
NiN (2017). Primary Doctors. Accessed via http://www.nyinorge.no/en/Ny-i-Norge-velg- sprak/New-in-Norway/Health/Health-services/Primary-doctor/
WEF (2018). The Global Gender Gap Report 2018, accessible through https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-gender-gap-report-2018
Weinberger, C. (1999). “Mathematical college majors and the gender gap in wages”
Industrial Relations 38(3): pp. 407-413
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics of Individuals in Sample
Girls Boys
Mean St.D Mean St.D
Panel A: Family Composition
Birth order 1.864 0.983 1.850 0.985
Siblings 1.697 1.064 1.707 1.052
Born in Norway 0.861 0.346 0.851 0.356
Mother age (birth) 28.987 5.008 29.414 4.822
Mother marital status (birth) 0.567 0.496 0.595 0.491
Parental years of education (birth) 13.775 2.343 14.121 2.309
Both parents born abroad 0.058 0.234 0.068 0.252
Panel B: GP Visiting Behavior
GP visits age 15 1.165 1.630 0.898 1.525
GP visits age 15 conditional on visiting 2.130 1.680 1.915 1.730
Still with ex. GP at age 15 0.613 0.487 0.616 0.486
Panel C: Educational Performance and Choice
Compulsory school GPA 4.591 0.573 4.430 0.595
Compulsory school STEMM GPA 4.303 0.889 4.351 0.914
High school GPA 4.314 0.654 4.185 0.681
High school STEMM GPA 3.993 0.890 3.940 0.905
Academic track year 1 0.734 0.440 0.807 0.395
High school STEMM degree 0.195 0.396 0.303 0.460
Ever College 0.751 0.433 0.678 0.467
Ever College STEMM 0.077 0.266 0.185 0.388
Notes: Authors’ calculations based on detailed administrative records. Sample includes all boys and girls born between 1988 and 1996 who were subject to at least one exogenous GP swap prior to age 15. Number of observations is approximately 8500 girls and 5500 boys.
29
Table 2: Effect of same-gender GP on educational choice and performance of girls
High school High school Compulsory school High school
academic track STEMM degree STEMM GPA STEMM GPA
Same-gender GP 0.052*** 0.039** 0.084** 0.109***
(0.017) (0.018) (0.039) (0.039)
Mean 0.736 0.194 4.297 3.993
Observations 8679 8424 8617 8258
Notes: The table shows theβ1 coefficients obtained through estimation of equation (1) as described in the text and reproduced here for the sake of clarity: yi =α+β1GP_M atchi+τt+πm+θc+ρd+i. yi is a general term denoting the outcome listed on top of each column, and each estimation includes municipality (πm), year of swap (τt), birth year (θc) and previous GP (ρd) fixed effects. The point estimates depicted in the table should be interpreted as the effect of random assignment to same-gender GP in childhood on the outcome listed at the top of the column. Standard errors are clustered at the level of the exogenously-assigned GP. Sample includes all girls born between 1988 and 1996 who were subject to at least one exogenous GP swap prior to age 15. * denotes significance at the 10 percent level, ** denotes significance at the 5 percent level and *** denotes significance at the 1 percent level.
30
Table 3: Effect of same-gender GP on educational choice and performance of boys
High school High school Compulsory school High school
academic track STEMM degree STEMM GPA STEMM GPA
Same-gender GP 0.011 0.002 -0.038 0.010
(0.020) (0.025) (0.047) (0.049)
Mean 0.807 0.600 4.350 3.940
Observations 5514 5338 5475 5253
Notes: The table shows theβ1 coefficients obtained through estimation of equation (1) as described in the text and reproduced here for the sake of clarity: yi =α+β1GP_M atchi+τt+πm+θc+ρd+i. yi is a general term denoting the outcome listed on top of each column, and each estimation includes municipality (πm), year of swap (τt), birth year (θc) and previous GP (ρd) fixed effects. The point estimates depicted in the table should be interpreted as the effect of random assignment to same-gender GP in childhood on the outcome listed at the top of the column. Standard errors are clustered at the level of the exogenously-assigned GP. Sample includes all boys born between 1988 and 1996 who were subject to at least one exogenous GP swap prior to age 15. * denotes significance at the 10 percent level, ** denotes significance at the 5 percent level and *** denotes significance at the 1 percent level.
31
Table 4: Effect of same-gender GP on females, by mother’s education
Compulsory school High school High school High school
STEMM GPA STEMM GPA academic track STEMM degree
Panel A: Mother college or more
Same-gender GP 0.021 -0.014 0.029 0.035
(0.091) (0.098) (0.033) (0.050)
Mean 4.632 4.243 0.851 0.291
Observations 2339 2337 2341 2341
Panel B: Mother less than college
Same-gender GP 0.101* 0.137** 0.070*** 0.093***
(0.054) (0.053) (0.026) (0.024)
Mean 4.212 3.874 0.675 0.152
Observations 4637 4652 4654 4643
Notes: The table shows theβ1 coefficients obtained through estimation of equation (1) as described in the text and reproduced here for the sake of clarity: yi =α+β1GP_M atchi+τt+πm+θc+ρd+i. yi is a general term denoting the outcome listed on top of each column, and each estimation includes municipality (πm), year of swap (τt), birth year (θc) and previous GP (ρd) fixed effects. The point estimates depicted in the table should be interpreted as the effect of random assignment to same-gender GP in childhood on the outcome listed at the top of the column. Standard errors are clustered at the level of the exogenously-assigned GP. Panel A includes all girls who were subject to at least one exogenous GP swap prior to age 15 and has a mother with at least a college education. Panel B includes includes all girls who were subject to at least one exogenous GP swap before age 15 and has a mother with less than a college education. * denotes significance at the 10 percent level, ** denotes significance at the 5 percent level and *** denotes significance at the 1 percent level.
32
Table5:Theeffectofsame-genderGPonSTEMMGPA-quantileeffects QuantileQuantileQuantileQuantileQuantileQuantileQuantileQuantileQuantile 123456789 PanelA:CompulsoryschoolSTEMMGPA Same-genderGP0.006-0.0000.0110.0110.082*0.082*0.067*0.067*0.149* (0.030)(0.044)(0.032)(0.032)(0.043)(0.043)(0.035)(0.035)(0.070) PanelB:HighschoolSTEMMGPA Same-genderGP-0.0270.0600.0760.145**0.135**0.156**0.0960.0450.140** (0.084)(0.066)(0.056)(0.062)(0.052)(0.063)(0.058)(0.067)(0.068) Notes:Authors’estimationofequation(1)asdescribedintextusingtheunconditionalquantilregressionmethoddiscussedinFirpo,Fortinand Lemieux(2009).Regressionsincludemunicipality,yearofswap,birthyearandpreviousGPfixedeffects.Standarderrorsareclusteredatlevelof theexogenously-assignedGP.Sampleincludesallgirlsbornbetween1988and1996whoweresubjecttoatleastoneexogenousGPswappriorto age15.*denotessignificanceatthe10percentlevel,**denotessignificanceatthe5percentleveland***denotessignificanceatthe1percent level.
33
Table 6: Effect of same-gender GP, additional outcomes
Compulsory school High school College College
non-STEMM GPA non-STEMM GPA enrollment STEMM enrollment
Same-gender GP 0.040* 0.067** 0.005 0.022*
(0.023) (0.028) (0.017) (0.013)
Mean 4.297 4.384 0.754 0.077
Observations 8617 8678 8680 8680
Notes: The table shows theβ1 coefficients obtained through estimation of equation (1) as described in the text and reproduced here for the sake of clarity: yi=α+β1GP_M atchi+τt+πm+θc+ρd+i.yiis a general term denoting the outcome listed on top of each column, and each estimation includes municipality (πm), year of swap (τt), birth year (θc) and previous GP (ρd) fixed effects. The point estimates depicted in the table should be interpreted as the effect of random assignment to same-gender GP in childhood on the outcome listed at the top of the column. Standard errors are clustered at the level of the exogenously-assigned GP. Panel A includes all girls who were subject to at least one exogenous GP swap prior to age 15 and has a mother with at least a college education . Panel B includes includes all girls who were subject to at least one exogenous GP swap before age 15 and has a mother with less than a college education. * denotes significance at the 10 percent level, ** denotes significance at the 5 percent level and *** denotes significance at the 1 percent level.
34
Table7:Balancetest BirthBorninMotheryearsMotherMotherMotherMothernotin orderSiblingsNorwayofeducationagemarriedlogincomelaborforce Same-genderGP0.0440.049-0.0250.1520.0860.009-0.020-0.003 (0.042)(0.055)(0.017)(0.111)(0.195)(0.020)(0.023)(0.015) Mean1.8651.6980.86113.77528.9740.56712.0490.121 Observations84248424842469968423803484248424 Notes:Thetableshowstheβ1coefficientsobtainedthroughestimationofequation(1)asdescribedinthetextandreproducedhereforthe sakeofclarity:yi=α+β1GP_Matchi+τt+πm+θc+ρd+i.yiisageneraltermdenotingtheoutcomelistedontopofeachcolumn, andeachestimationincludesmunicipality(πm),yearofswap(τt),birthyear(θc)andpreviousGP(ρd)fixedeffects.Thepointestimates depictedinthetableshouldbeinterpretedastheeffectofrandomassignmenttosame-genderGPinchildhoodontheoutcomelistedatthe topofthecolumn.Standarderrorsareclusteredattheleveloftheexogenously-assignedGP.Sampleincludesallgirlsbornbetween1988and 1996whoweresubjecttoatleastoneexogenousGPswappriortoage15.Motheryearsofeducation,motherageandmothermaritalstatus arecalculatedattheyearofbirth.Motherearningsandemploymentaremeasuredwhenthechildisfiveyearsoldasourdataonearnings andemploymentdoesnotdateasfarback.*denotessignificanceatthe10percentlevel,**denotessignificanceatthe5percentleveland ***denotessignificanceatthe1percentlevel.
35
Table 8: Placebo Tests; Post high school GP swaps
Compulsory school High school High school High school
STEMM GPA STEMM GPA academic track STEMM degree
Same-sex GP 0.024 -0.048 0.009 -0.012
(0.028) (0.046) (0.009) (0.015)
Mean 4.048 3.973 0.752 0.146
Notes: The table shows theβ1coefficients obtained through estimation of equation (1) as described in the text and reproduced here for the sake of clarity:yi=α+β1GP_M atchi+τt+πm+θc+ρd+i.yiis a general term denoting the outcome listed on top of each column, and each estimation includes municipality (πm), year of swap (τt), birth year (θc) and previous GP (ρd) fixed effects. The point estimates depicted in the table should be interpreted as the effect of random assignment to same-gender GP in childhood on the outcome listed at the top of the column. Standard errors are clustered at the level of the exogenously-assigned GP. Sample includes all girls who subject to at least one exogenous GP swap between age 21 and 24. * denotes significance at the 10 percent level, ** denotes significance at the 5 percent level and *** denotes significance at the 1 percent level.
36
Table9:Potentialpathwaysandmechanisms PanelA:Potentialindirecteffectsthroughhealth NumberofStillwithNumberofMentalhealthBithcontrolFertility GPvisitsassignedGPdiagnosesdiagnosisvisits Same-genderGP-0.009-0.014-0.039-0.0000.002-0.000** (0.070)(0.019)(0.028)(0.000)(0.005)(0.000) Mean1.1660.6132.2410.0780.0690.000 PanelB:Potentialindirecteffectsthroughmother YearsofTotalNotinNumberofMentalhealthBithcontrolFertility educationincomelaborforcediagnosesdiagnosisvisits Same-genderGP0.004-0.0040.0090.176-0.0030.001-0.001 (0.109)(0.021)(0.012)(0.141)(0.018)(0.012)(0.001) Mean14.14612.7400.0663.6140.1860.0680.003 Notes:Thetableshowstheβ1coefficientsobtainedthroughestimationofequation(1)asdescribedinthetextandreproducedhereforthesake ofclarity:yi=α+β1GP_Matchi+τt+πm+θc+ρd+i.yiisageneraltermdenotingtheoutcomelistedontopofeachcolumn,andeach estimationincludesmunicipality(πm),yearofswap(τt),birthyear(θc)andpreviousGP(ρd)fixedeffects.Thepointestimatesdepictedinthe tableshouldbeinterpretedastheeffectofrandomassignmenttosame-genderGPinchildhoodontheoutcomelistedatthetopofthecolumn. Standarderrorsareclusteredattheleveloftheexogenously-assignedGP.SampleinPanel(A)includesallgirlsbornbetween1988and1996who weresubjecttoatleastoneexogenousGPswappriortoage15.SampleinPanel(B)includeallmotherstogirlswhowerebornbetween1988 and1996andwhowereexposedtoatleastoneexogenousGPswappriortoage15.Alloutcomesaremeasuredwhenthegirlsare15yearsold. Totalincomeisreportedinlogarithmicform.*denotessignificanceatthe10percentlevel,**denotessignificanceatthe5percentleveland*** denotessignificanceatthe1percentlevel.
37
Figure 1: Same-gender role model effects by age-at-swap, females
Notes: Authors’ estimation of a equation (2) as described in text and reproduced here for the sake of clarity: yi = α+
P3
a=1[∂a(ExogSwapiaxGP M atchi)] +τt+πm+θc+ρd+i.yiis a general term denoting the outcome listed on top of each column, and each estimation includes municipality (πm), year of swap (τt), birth year (θc) and previous GP (ρd) fixed effects.
The point estimates depicted in the table should be interpreted as the effect of random assignment to same-gender GP in the age range denoted on the x axis. Heterogeneity in effect size across age ranges are driven both by differences in the lenght of exposure and differences in how susceptive individuals are to role models influences in the different age ranges. Standard errors are clustered at level of the exogenously-assigned GP. Sample includes all girls born between 1988 and 1996 that were subject to at least one exogenous GP swap prior to age 15.
38
Figure 2: Permutation tests
(a)Compulsory school STEMM GPA (b) High school STEMM GPA
(c)Academic high school track (d)High school STEMM degree
Notes: Authors’ estimation of equation (1) as described in text and reproduced here for the sake of clarity: yi =
α+β1GP_M atchi+τt+πm+θc+ρd+i. yi is a general term denoting the outcome listed on top of each subfigure, and each estimation includes municipality (πm), year of swap (τt), birth year (θc) and previous GP (ρd) fixed effects. Each subfigure plots the distribution of point estimates obtained from 300 permutations of Equation (1) in which treatment status has been randomly assigned across individuals holding the distribution of treatment constant. The dotted vertical line illustrates where in this distribution the identified effect in Table 2 falls. Regressions include municipality, year of swap, birth year and previous GP fixed effects. Standard errors are clustered at level of the exogenously-assigned GP. Sample includes all girls born between 1988 and 1996 that were subject to at least one exogenous GP swap prior to age 15.
39
Online Appendix: Not For Publication
40
TableA1:Overviewofhighschooleducationalprogramsandspecializations
41
Table A2: Descriptive statistics of individuals not in sample
Girls Boys
Mean St.D Mean St.D
Birth order 1.830 0.950 1.817 0.936
Siblings 1.683 1.041 1.671 0.999
Born in Norway 0.855 0.352 0.841 0.366
Mother age (birth) 28.974 4.873 29.384 4.777
Mother marital status (birth) 0.614 0.487 0.637 0.481
Parental years of education (birth) 13.937 2.353 14.300 2.301
Both parents born abroad 0.061 0.240 0.063 0.251
Notes: Authors’ calculations based on detailed administrative records. Sample includes all boys and girls born between 1988 and 1996 who were not subject to an exogenous GP swap prior to age 15. Number of observations is approximately 108500 girls and 73400 boys.
42
Table A3: Swap frequency Exogenous GP swap
No Swaps 0
One Swap 12292
Two Swaps 1333
Three Swaps 131
Four Swaps 13
Five Swaps 1
Notes: Number of individuals that experienced different frequencies of exogenous swaps prior to
turning 15. Sample includes all boys and girls
born between 1988 and 1996 who were subject to at least one exogenous GP swap prior to age 15.
43
TableA4:ProbabilityofstayingwithGPasafunctionofobservablecharacteristics BirthBorninMotheryearsMotherMotherMotherMothernotin orderSiblingsNorwayofeducationagemarriedlogincomelaborforce Same-genderGP-0.0030.0190.0080.151*-0.022-0.0020.0220.004 (0.028)(0.027)(0.009)(0.080)(0.138)(0.014)(0.020)(0.008) Mean1.8651.6980.86113.77528.9740.56712.0490.121 Observations84248424842469968423803484248424 Notes:Thetableshowstheβcoefficientsobtainedthroughestimationofamodifiedversionequation(1): Stillwithexogenously-assignedGPatage15i=α+βXi+τt+πm+θc+ρd+i.yiisageneraltermdenotingtheoutcomelistedontop ofeachcolumn,andeachestimationincludesmunicipality(πm),yearofswap(τt),birthyear(θc)andpreviousGP(ρd)fixedeffects.X representsavectorofdemographiccharacteristicsandismadeupofallvariablespresentedascolumntitlesinthistable.Theregression includesmunicipality(πm),yearofswap(τt),birthyear(θc)andpreviousGP(ρd)fixedeffects.Thepointestimatesillustratethedifference intheobservablecharacteristicatthetopofthecolumnbetweenthosewhostayedwiththeirexogenously-assignedGPuntilage15andthose whodidnotstaywiththeirexogenously-assignedGPuntilage15.Standarderrorsareclusteredattheleveloftheexogenously-assignedGP. Sampleincludesallgirlsbornbetween1988and1996whoweresubjecttoatleastoneexogenousGPswappriortoage15.Motheryearsof education,motherageandmothermaritalstatusarecalculatedattheyearofbirth.Motherearningsandemploymentaremeasuredwhen thechildisfiveyearsoldasourdataonearningsandemploymentdoesnotdateasfarbacktoenableustomeasuretheseoutcomespriorto childbirth.*denotessignificanceatthe10percentlevel,**denotessignificanceatthe5percentleveland***denotessignificanceatthe1 percentlevel.
44
Table A5: Effect of same-gender GP on females, addi-tional outcomes
Non-STEMM Non-academic
academic tracks tracks
Same-gender GP -0.028 -0.012
(0.020) (0.010)
Mean 0.726 0.079
Observations 8449 8680
Notes: The table shows the β1 coefficients obtained through
estimation of equation (1) as described in the text and reproduced here for the sake of clarity: yi =α+β1GP_M atchi+τt+πm+ θc+ρd+i. yi is a general term denoting the outcome listed on top of each column, and each estimation includes municipality (πm), year of swap (τt), birth year (θc) and previous GP (ρd) fixed effects.
The point estimates depicted in the table should be interpreted as the effect of random assignment to same-gender GP in childhood on the outcome listed at the top of the column. Standard errors are clustered at the level of the exogenously-assigned GP. Sample includes all girls who were subject to at least one exogenous GP
swap prior to age 15. * denotes significance at the 10 percent
level, ** denotes significance at the 5 percent level and *** denotes significance at the 1 percent level.
45
TableA6:Effectofsame-genderGPonfemaleeducationalchoiceandperformance,stayersv. leavers CompulsoryschoolHighSchoolHighschoolHighschool STEMMGPASTEMMGPAacademictrackSTEMMdegreel PanelA:IndividualsremainingwiththeirexogenouslyassignedGPuntilage15 Same-genderGP0.0750.143**0.048**0.070** (0.059)(0.044)(0.024)(0.028) Mean4.3053.9860.7400.193 Observations5160504051685168 PanelB:IndividualsnotremainingwiththeirexogenouslyassignedGPuntilage15 Same-genderGP0.0610.0210.073**0.011 (0.077)(0.069)(0.031)(0.033) Mean4.3004.0020.7320.196 Observations3249316932553255 Notes:Thetableshowstheβ1coefficientsobtainedthroughestimationofequation(1)asdescribedinthetextand reproducedhereforthesakeofclarity:yi=α+β1GP_Matchi+τt+πm+θc+ρd+i.yiisageneraltermdenoting theoutcomelistedontopofeachcolumn,andeachestimationincludesmunicipality(πm),yearofswap(τt),birth year(θc)andpreviousGP(ρd)fixedeffects.Thepointestimatesdepictedinthetableshouldbeinterpretedas theeffectofrandomassignmenttosame-genderGPinchildhoodontheoutcomelistedatthetopofthecolumn. Standarderrorsareclusteredattheleveloftheexogenously-assignedGP.PanelAincludesallgirlswhoweresubject toatleastoneexogenousGPswappriortoage15andremainedwiththatGPuntilage15.PanelBincludesall girlswhoweresubjecttoatleastoneexogenousGPswapbeforeage15anddidnotremainwiththatGPuntil age15.*denotessignificanceatthe10percentlevel,**denotessignificanceatthe5percentleveland***denotes significanceatthe1percentlevel.
46
Table A7: Effect of same-gender GP on female educational choice and performance, GP list termination only
Compulsory school High school High school High school
STEMM GPA STEMM GPA academic track STEMM degree
Same-gender GP 0.134*** 0.134*** 0.062*** 0.063***
(0.042) (0.045) (0.019) (0.021)
Mean 4.293 3.990 0.734 0.193
Observations 8174 7825 8236 7986
Notes: The table shows theβ1 coefficients obtained through estimation of equation (1) as described in the text
Notes: The table shows theβ1 coefficients obtained through estimation of equation (1) as described in the text