Ethnic Hostility among Ethnic Majority and Minority Groups

More documents

Recommendations

Info

6. Explanations for Ethnic Educational Inequality | Results Next, we investigate the odds of choosing a non-science fi eld of study versus a science fi eld at the university level (Table 6.4). Compared to men, women are more likely to opt for a non-science fi eld than for a science fi eld (b=1.63, p=0.00; model 1, Table 6.4). The popularity of science and non-science fi elds does not signifi cantly differ across ethnic groups or parental education categories. On the other hand, students whose parents earn more are more likely to choose a non-science fi eld. This is possibly because next to social returns, economic returns to education infl uence school decisions as well (Becker, 1964), and students possibly estimate their life-long earnings after a non-science study to be higher than those after a science study. Unfortunately, our data set lacks information on economic aspirations and expected economic returns after different options in higher education. Model 2a controls for factors related to study costs. Here we see that students who continue to live at home are typically science students (b=–0.43, p=0.00; model 2a, Table 6.4). Students with stronger higher education and university aspirations have a greater tendency to choose science fi elds (model 2b) as well, but this effect is explained by demonstrated ability (model 2c). The higher the students’ grade point average, the more likely they are to opt for a science fi eld compared to a non-science fi eld (b=–0.56, p=0.00; model 2c, Table 6.4). Unsurprisingly, the more exact disciplines students’ took in secondary school, the more likely they are to opt for an exact fi eld of study at the university. Ability explains the effect of sex and parental income on the odds of choosing a nonscience versus a science fi eld at the university level; the effect of sex diminished from 1.60 (model 2b) to 1.18 (model 2c), the effect of parental income fell from 0.45 (model 2b) to 0.36 (model 2c). Turkish and Moroccan students are signifi cantly more likely to opt for a non-science fi eld than a science fi eld compared to western immigrants (and the native Dutch) once we take into account ability differences. Students whose parents studied at the professional college level are less likely to opt for a non-science fi eld than students whose parents studied at the university level, after controlling for ability (b=-0.26, p=0.03; model 2c, Table 6.4). Possibly, because students with university-educated parents aim to avoid downwards mobility, they are less eager to risk enrolling in a diffi cult – science – fi eld. Students whose parents were educated at the professional college level could avoid downwards mobility even after failing at the university by enrolling in a professional college. We already saw that gradients in success probabilities across educational options infl uence students’ educational decisions (Table 6.3). Naturally, within our conditional logit model specifi cation, this choice-specifi c coeffi cient is similar in Table 6.4 and Table 6.3. Differences between men and women in gradients across options which differ by level were much smaller than differences in gradients across options which differ by fi eld (see above). This is probably why success probabilities do not explain the effect of sex on the choice of level of schooling (Table 6.3) but do explain the effect of sex on fi eld choice; the effect of sex fell from 1.60 (Table 6.4, model 2b) to 0.85 (model 3). The effect of parental income on fi eld choice almost halved after taking into account success probabilities. We thus fi nd strong evidence in support of hypothesis 5: success probabilities explain the effect of social origin and sex on educational choices which differ by fi eld. 135
Table 6.5 The impact of success probabilities on the log-odds for specifi c tracks in higher education a 136 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 b p b p b p b p Impact of success probability on specifi c track choicesb University–science 0.37** 0.00 0.38** 0.00 0.39** 0.00 0.39** 0.00 University–non-science 0.33** 0.00 0.33** 0.00 0.34** 0.00 0.37** 0.00 Professional college-science 0.48** 0.00 0.50** 0.00 0.51** 0.00 0.49** 0.00 Professional college–non-science 0.18** 0.00 0.18** 0.00 0.18** 0.00 0.21** 0.00 Track choice*parental education (not-university=reference) University–science*university -0.04 0.33 -0.06 0.21 University–non-science*university -0.02 0.58 -0.04 0.38 Professional college-science*university -0.09 0.44 -0.11 0.36 Professional college–non-science*university -0.02 0.80 -0.03 0.73 Track choice*LN(parental income) University–science*LN (parental income) 0.04 0.31 University–non-science*LN (parental income) 0.05 0.27 Professional college-science*LN (parental income) 0.05 0.54 Professional college–non-science*LN (parental income) 0.02 0.68 Track choice*sex (men=reference) University–science*women -0.07~ 0.10 University–non-science*women -0.11** 0.01 Professional college-science*women 0.02 0.82 Professional college–non-science*women -0.09 0.15 ** p
Page 1 and 2:
ETHNIC HOSTILITY AMONG ETHNIC MAJOR
Page 3:
Promotores: prof. dr. N. D. de Graa
Page 6 and 7:
Science is so much more fun when yo
Page 8 and 9:
3.4.1 Opposition to ethnic intermar
Page 10:
8.3.1 Theoretical implications for
Page 14 and 15:
1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 NEW QUESTIONS 1
Page 16 and 17:
1. Introduction | New questions ski
Page 18 and 19:
1. Introduction | The setting of th
Page 20 and 21:
1. Introduction | Research question
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Table 1.1 Outline of empirical chap
Page 28:
1. Introduction | Notes 27
Page 32 and 33:
2. SOCIAL MOBILITY AND ETHNIC HOSTI
Page 34 and 35:
2. Social Mobility and Ethnic Hosti
Page 36 and 37:
social conformity favour more toler
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
e more important than the infl uenc
Page 42 and 43:
2.4 RESULTS 2. Social Mobility and
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48:
Page 51 and 52:
1987). Assessment of the importance
Page 53 and 54:
The actual ethnic competition withi
Page 55 and 56:
(Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Wagner e
Page 57 and 58:
seven categories: no-religion, Roma
Page 59 and 60:
the lower the opposition to ethnic
Page 61 and 62:
Table 3.1 Hierarchical linear inter
Page 63 and 64:
Table 3.2 Hierarchical linear inter
Page 65 and 66:
In model 8 we focus on the characte
Page 67 and 68:
Table 3.3 Comparison of explanatory
Page 69 and 70:
3.5 CONCLUSIONS We observed a weak
Page 71 and 72:
9. The models presented in this cha
Page 74 and 75:
4. THE LOCAL LIVING ENVIRONMENT AND
Page 76 and 77:
unit such as states or countries, w
Page 78 and 79:
4. The Local Living Environment and
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
4.4 RESULTS 4. The Local Living Env
Page 86 and 87: Table 4.2 continued Household compo
Page 88 and 89: 4. The Local Living Environment and
Page 90 and 91: 4. The Local Living Environment and
Page 92: 4. The Local Living Environment and
Page 96 and 97: 5. TRENDS IN ETHNIC EDUCATIONAL INE
Page 98 and 99: 5. Trends in Ethnic Educational Ine
Page 102 and 103: the worsening economic conditions o
Page 110 and 111: Table 5.3 continued Male (Female=re
Page 112 and 113: Table 5.4 continued Male (Female= r
Page 118 and 119: 6. EXPLANATIONS FOR ETHNIC EDUCATIO
Page 120 and 121: To answer our research questions, w
Page 122 and 123: 6. Explanations for Ethnic Educatio
Page 126 and 127: Table 6.1 continued Pre-university
Page 130 and 131: Table 6.2 continued Lower general t
Page 138 and 139: Model 4 includes both the ability m
Page 144 and 145: 7. EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT AND ETHNI
Page 146 and 147: among four ethnic minority groups i
Page 148 and 149: 7. Educational Attainment and Ethni
Page 152 and 153: Table 7.1 Summary of hypotheses Cor
Page 156 and 157: Table 7.2 continued Control variabl
Page 160 and 161: Table 7.3 continued 2nd gen. Turks
Page 164 and 165: Table 7.4 continued 2nd gen. Turks
Page 168: 7. Educational Attainment and Ethni
Page 172 and 173: 8. CONCLUSION 8.1 INTRODUCTION 8. C
Page 174 and 175: 8.2 QUESTIONS, RESULTS AND CONCLUSI
Page 176 and 177: 8. Conclusion | Questions, results
Page 182 and 183: local living environments (on ethni
Page 186 and 187:
8. Conclusion | Questions, results
Page 188 and 189:
8. Conclusion | Questions, results
Page 190 and 191:
8. Conclusion | Theoretical implica
Page 192 and 193:
ethnic hosting threat contact / res
Page 194 and 195:
8. Conclusion | Retrospect and pros
Page 196 and 197:
8. Conclusion | Notes 195
Page 198 and 199:
APPENDIX Appendix 197
Page 200 and 201:
APPENDIX 2.2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
Page 202 and 203:
Appendix 2.3 continued Mobility typ
Page 204 and 205:
APPENDIX 2.4 TUTORIAL DIAGONAL MOBI
Page 206 and 207:
*********MEANS and OLS***********.
Page 208 and 209:
impact on depY. *The relative impac
Page 210 and 211:
Appendix *The impact of the destina
Page 212 and 213:
vector d = d1 to d6. vector p = p1
Page 214 and 215:
*and with constraints our model wou
Page 216 and 217:
Appendix 215
Page 218 and 219:
Appendix 3.1 continued father’s s
Page 220 and 221:
APPENDIX 3.3 OPPOSITION TO ETHNIC I
Page 222 and 223:
Appendix Appendix 4.1 continued Eco
Page 224 and 225:
Appendix APPENDIX 4.3 VARIANCE COMP
Page 226 and 227:
Appendix 5.1 continued Ethnicity N
Page 228 and 229:
APPENDIX 5.3 ROBUSTNESS OF ES ASSOC
Page 230 and 231:
Appendix APPENDIX 5.5 MULTI-NOMINAL
Page 232 and 233:
Appendix 7.1 continued 2nd gen. 2nd
Page 234 and 235:
Appendix 233
Page 236 and 237:
BIBLIOGRAPHY Bibliography Abu-Rayya
Page 238 and 239:
Bibliography Buijs, F. J., Demant,
Page 240 and 241:
Bibliography (pp. 345-383). Oxford:
Page 242 and 243:
Bibliography euthanasia, homosexual
Page 244 and 245:
Bibliography Onderzoek (ISEO). Mart
Page 246 and 247:
Bibliography Politics, 58(1), 41-72
Page 248 and 249:
Bibliography Worchel (Eds.), The so
Page 250 and 251:
Bibliography 249
Page 252 and 253:
Summary in Dutch / Nederlandstalige
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
CURRICULUM VITAE Curriculum Vitae J
Page 266 and 267:
ICS DISSERTATION SERIES ICS dissert
Page 268 and 269:
ICS dissertation series 37) Andreas
Page 270 and 271:
ICS dissertation series 76) Inge Si
Page 272 and 273:
ICS dissertation series 115) Martin
Page 274:
Why do some individuals express mor
show all

Ethnic Hostility among Ethnic Majority and Minority Groups

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?