Discussion 7: Regression Critique

MODULE7REGRESSION.asp.pdf

Home >English homework help >Article writing homework help >Discussion 7: Regression Critique

Civic Returns to Higher Education: A Note on Heterogeneous Effects

Jennie E. Brand, University of California Los Angeles

American educational leaders and philosophers have long valued schooling for its role in preparing the nation's youth to be civically engaged citizens. Numerous studies have found a positive relationship between education and subsequent civic participation. However, little is known about possible variation in efFects by selection into higher edu- cation, a critical omission considering education's expressed role as a key mechanism for integrating disadvantaged individuals into civic life. I disaggregate efïects and examine whether civic returns to higher education are largest for disadvantaged low likelihood or advantaged high likelihood college goers. I find evidence for significant effect heteroge- neity: civic returns to college are greatest among individuals who have a low likelihood for college completion. Returns decrease as the propensity for college increases.

The questions of how and to what extent education can and should influence civic participation have preoccupied philosophers, theorists and social scientists for hundreds of years. From Plato and Aristotle to America's prominent educational leaders - Thomas Jefferson, John Dewey, Horace Mann, W.E.B. Dubois - educa- tion has been recognized for its tole in preparing youth to be socially engaged citizens (Giroux 2009). The original missions of colleges and universities expressed this essential public purpose, and civic returns to education, particularly among disadvantaged members of the population, continue to offer a central justifica- tion for public policy promoting equal access to schooling.' Civic participation is defined as unpaid work or involvement with voluntary associations, groups or activities, such as the United Way, Meals on Wheels, neighborhood improvement groups, little league sports or sometimes more broadly, involvement with political activities such as campaigning. Civic participation confers societal rewards by way of a vibrant democracy and well-functioning neighborhoods; it is linked to indi- vidual rewards by way of job networks, occupational advancement, and physical and mental well-being (Durkheim 1933; Putnam 2000; Wilson 2000).

A prominent tradition of social and political research seeks to identify factors that influence civic participation (Wilson 2000). This work has taken on renewed

I tbankfohn Wilson, Megan Andrew and several anonymous reviewers fiom Social Vorces for helpful comments and suggestions. Versions of this article were presented at the Department of Sociology and Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University and the Population Association of America 2010 Annual Meeting. Financial support for tbis researcb was provided by tbe National Institutes ofHealtb, Grant 1 R21 NRO10856-01 and by the California Center for Population Research at UCLA, which receives core support from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Devel- opment, Grant R24 5R24HD041022. Direct correspondence to fennie E. Brand, Department of Sociology, University of California, 264 Haines Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1551. Pbone: 310. 206.1049. Fax: 310.206.9838. E-mail: [email protected].

» t h B University of North Carolina Social Forcos 89121417-434. Deriember 2010

418 • Social Forces %W)

inceresc ac a cime when many forms of civic involvemenc appear co be declining (Pucnam 2000). Numerous scudies idencify educaeion as a key correlaee if noc decerminanc of civic pareicipaeion, wieh ehe more educaeed more parcicipacory chan che less educaeed (Almond and Verba 1963; Brehm and Rahn 1997; Dee 2004; Freeman 1997; Gesehuizen, van der Meer and Scheepers 2008; Häuser 2000; Huang, van den Brink and Grooe 2008; McPherson and Roeolo 1996; Nie, Junn and Seehlik-Barry 1996; Puenam 1995, 2000; Verba and Nie 1972; Verba, Schlozman and Brady 1995). Puenam (1995:672) asseres ehae "educaeion is by far ehe serongese correlaee ehae I have discovered of civic engagemene in all ies forms."

Some seudies recognize ehe endogeneiey or seleceion bias problem associaeed wieh assessing ehe causal effece of educaeion on civic pareicipaeion (Dee 2004; Gibson 2001; Häuser 2000); ehae is, faceors such as moeivaeion or conscieneiousness mighe cause boeh higher educaeional aeeainmene and civic pareicipaeion. However, seudies have noe addressed a relaeed form of seleceion bias: heeerogeneous college effeccs on civic pareicipaeion by faceors influencing seleceion ineo college educaeion. Thae is, individuals differ noe only in background aeeribuees bue also in how ehey respond eo life evenes. Given ehe subseaneial lieeraeure on ehe relaeionship beeween educaeion and civic pareicipaeion, surprisingly lieele aeeeneion has been paid eo variaeion in civic reeurns eo educaeion. And given educaeion's poeeneially key role in incegrac- ing disadvancaged youch inco civic life, ic is imporeane eo assess wheeher schooling succeeds in promoeing civic pareicipaeion among underprivileged groups. Previous seudies eseimaee averages of varying effeces of educaeion on civic pareicipaeion across groups of individuals classed by eheir pre-coUege social backgrounds and levels of early achievemene. In ehis seudy, I disaggregaee ehe effects of college on civic par- eicipaeion and examine wheeher civic reeurns eo schooling are largese for relaeively disadvaneaged low likelihood or more advaneaged high likelihood college goers.

Civic Returns to Higher Education

Given evidence for a significane average efFece of educaeion on civic pareicipaeion, various explanaeions have been advanced as eo why educaeion should increase such involvemene. Firse, individuals learn civic norms and responsibilieies gov- erning democraeic socieey via socializaeion in schools, such as recognieion of and adherence eo colleceive ineereses ehae override individual preferences (Brady, Verba and Scblozman 1995; Gogan and Morris 2001; Dee 2004; Durkheim 1925; Gesehuizen, van der Meer and Scheepers 2008; Nie, Junn and Seehlik-Barry 1996). As Durkheim (1925:59) coneends, educaeion eeaches seudenes "how one should ace on behalf of ebe colleceive ineerese." Despiee cereain claims ehae universicies have lose eheir sense of civic purpose (Giroux 2009; Huang, van den Brink and Grooe 2009), many, if noe mose, colleges and universieies aceively encourage un- dergraduaee seudenes eo pareicipaee in some form of voluneeer service, and par- eicipaeion during college has been found eo posieively affece seudenes' long-eerm civic commiemene (Asein, Sax and Avalos 1999; Gheckoway 2001; Johnson 2004).

Civic Returns to Higher Education » 4 1 9

Second, scholars contend that education increases skills and resources that facili- tate civic involvement, such as cognitive, communicative and bureaucratic proficien- cy. These acquired skills reduce the costs and complexity associated with participation (Häuser 2000; Nie, Junn and Stehlik-Barry 1996; Verba, Schlozman and Brady 1995). Third, strategic mobilization of organizations and groups encourages and discourages, to varying degrees, the participation of different demographic groups. In other words, members of a resourceflil highly educated poptilation are more likely to be asked to participate (Brady, Schlozman and Verba 1999; Gesthuizen, van der Meer and Scheepers 2008; Häuser 2000; McPherson and Rotólo 1996; Musick and Wilson 2008; Rosenstone and Hansen 1993; Wilson and Musick 1997a), and individuals tend to participate when asked (Freeman 1997). Fourth, higher educa- tion is associated with higher income and occupational status, which are associated with higher levels of civic participation (Putnam 1993).

A final explanation for the observed association between education and civic participation is selection bias (also called "pre-treatment heterogeneity bias" or

"endogeneity"), that unobserved factors are correlated both with selection into col- lege education and civic participation producing a spurious association (Dee 2004; Gibson 2001; Häuser 2000). For example, highly educated parents are likely to be civically active and to have children who obtain high levels of education, whereby an intergenerational transmission of civic participation appears as a causal effect of education Qanoski and Wilson 1995). Or, ability and personality may positively affect both educational attainment of youth and civic participation (Häuser 2000).^ Or, individuals with cohesive social relations with parents, teachers, neighbors and peers in childhood may obtain more education and be more socially and civically active (Nie, Junn and Stehlik-Barry 1996). Researchers who use various methods in an attempt to rule out selection bias find smaller, although still significant, effects of college on civic participation (Huang, van den Brink and Groot 2009). The robustness of tbe correlation between education and civic participation in the face of various technical assumptions and model specifications incites most researchers to conclude that education exerts some causal effect on participation.

An issue overlooked in the literature on education and civic participation is that social scientists increasingly recognize two kinds of selection bias (Morgan and Winship 2007). The first kind, pre-treatment heterogeneity, is due to heterogeneity in preexisting attributes associated with both educational attainment and civic par- ticipation. The second kind is treatment effect heterogeneity., or systematic variation in the effect of education on civic participation. An estimate of the effect of education . on civic participation is a weighted average of heterogeneous effects, a quantity that depends on the composition of the college-educated population (Angrist and Kruger 1999; Card 1999; Heckman, Urzua atid Vytlacil 2006; Morgan and Winship 2007). While homogeneous college effects are assumed in the prior literature on education and participation, it is reasonable to suppose that, and important to understand how, responses to college may differ (Brand and Xie 2010). One approach to study-

420 • Social Forces iW)

ing variation in effects of education is to estimate interactions between educational attainment and observed covariates, such as race or gender. However, examining interactions with individual covariates quickly exhausts degrees of freedom as more covariates are considered and, more importantly, misses their implications for selec- tion into college (Heckman, Urzua and Vytlacil 2006). Examining variation in college effects by the propensity for college reveals a fundamental facet of social stratification: the impact ofthe unequal distribution of scarce social resources.

Allowing for heterogeneous college effects, what hypotheses might we advance as to the pattern in effects? One line of research finds that individuals who have the highest economic returns to college are the most likely to select into college (Becker 1964; Garneiro, Heckman and Vytlacil 2007; Mincer 1974; Willis and Rosen 1979). This framework might be extended to civic returns to college, such that individuals who have the highest civic returns to college have the highest likelihood of college. It could be argued high propensity individuals' higher social backgrounds and ability levels better equip them to realize civic norms and cognitive and communicative proficiencies through schooling. And as high income and occupational status are associated with high civic participation, and individuals with a high likelihood of college have the highest income and occupational status, they may have the highest levels of civic participation. High social background, high ability, educated men and women may also be the most likely to be asked to participate. Nevertheless, these seemingly reasonable explanations imply higher levels of civic participation among high-propensity college goers, not necessarily higher returns from college.

An alternative theory is that the college effect on civic participation is greatest among individuals least likely to complete college. Prior research suggests that col- lege markedly alters the observed life path among individuals with a low likelihood of college attainment. Brand and Xie (2010) find that men and women with the lowest probability of completing college have the highest economic returns to col- lege. Brand and Davis (forthcoming) find that women with the lowest probability of college have the highest fertility-decreasing effect of college. Studies that have used compulsory schooling laws, differences in the accessibility of schools, and similar features as instrumental variables have found larger economic returns (Card 2001) and larger civic returns (Dee 2004) than OLS estimates, suggesting larger effects of education among individuals on the margin of school continuation.'

It is also possible that the explanations scholars have proposed to understand average effects of college on participation are more applicable to disadvantaged college goers than to the advantaged. Low propensity college goers have parents with little education and presumably low levels of civic participation, render- ing college especially consequential for learning civic norms and responsibili- ties. Gollege is also said to develop expanded, educated, civically active social networks, which should be especially important for college goers who come from more disadvantaged family and peer networks (Wilson and Musick 1997b, 1998). Likewise, mobilization ofthe educated by organizations and groups may be more

Civic Returns to Higher Education • 421

extensive among persons From disadvantaged social backgrounds. IF individuals From disadvantaged social backgrounds maintain contact with the communities oF their youth, these educated members in short supply will be in high demand For civic service by the less educated members oFsaid communities.''

Data and Descriptive Statistics

To study the effects oFeducation on subsequent civic participation, I use panel data From the National Longitudinal Survey oFYouth 1979. The NLSY is a nationally representative sample oF 12,686 respondents who were 14-22 years old when they were first interviewed in 1979. These individuals were interviewed annually through 1994 and are currently interviewed on a biennial basis. I use inFormation gathered From 1979 through 2006. I restrict the sample to respondents who were 14-17 years old at the baseline survey in 1979 (n = 5,582), who had completed at least the n * grade (n = 4,827), who did not have missing data on college completion or the pre-treatment covariates (n = 4,229),' and who did not have missing data on measures oFcivic participation From the 2006 survey wave (n = 3,074). I set these sample restrictions to ensure all measures I use are pre-college, particularly ability, and to compare college graduates with individuals who completed at least a high school education. The most disadvantaged individuals, who by and large would Fall into the lowest propensity stratum, are thus excluded. IF I were to retain high school dropouts, there would be substantially more imbalance between college and non-college graduates in tbe covariate distribution within the lowest propensity score stratum. Individuals lost due to nonresponse and attrition tend to come From less advantaged Family backgrounds and levels oF achievement than those retained. All analyses are weighted by the probability oF sample selection and nonresponse.

Table 1 describes measures oF pre-college covariates and post-college civic par- ticipation. Covariate measurement is generally straightForward. Parents' income is measured as total Family income in 1979 dollars. College-prep indicates whether or not a student is enrolled in a college-preparatory curriculum in high school. Friends' plans indicates the highest level oF schooling a respondent reported his or her Friends planned to obtain in 1979. Parents' encouragement mdicâtcs whether or not the most influential person in the respondent's liFe (in over two-thirds oF cases, a parent) would disapprove iFthe respondent did not go to college. In 1980, 94 percent oFthe NLSY respondents were administered the ASVAB, a battery oF 10 intelligence tests measuring knowledge and skill in areas such as mathematics and language. I first residualize each oFthe ASVAB tests on age at the time oFthe test separately by race and ethnicity. Residuals were standardized to mean zero and variance one. I then construct a scale oFthe standardized residuals (a = .92) which has a niean oFzero, standard deviation oF.8, and range oF-3 to 3. The likeli- hood oFcollege varies by gender, race and ethnicity. Family background, academic achievement. Friends' plans and parents' encouragement in the expected directions, as reported in the descriptive statistics in Table 1.

422 • Social Forces mm

I use two dichotomous indicators of civic participation measured in 2006 asking respondents if they performed any unpaid volunteer work in the past 12 months for: (1. civic, community or youth groups, and (2. charitable organi- zations or social welfare groups. Respondents were not asked these questions in prior survey waves, so I am unable to match respondents by pre-college participation in the propensity score stratification or compare outcomes over time. In 2006, about 13 percent of college graduates compared to 5 percent of non-college graduates volunteer for civic, community, ot youth groups and

i ,0

c o

ip at

u ••c

re a. _o

¡a i

re o U <u 5=

ol le

e- C

a. •S ss S

ip tî

Ta bI

a> a E o

Ü a> a(U

C ol

le tio

a E o

O a> a

Ile

oo o z

Q CO

f ~

ro 03

Q CO

M ea

le s

V ar

^ lO

co CM OO CO CD CD

:o in !o CM

T— CD

1) (0 -1

) ae

kg ro

CD l O

CM CO CM OO OO co'

co co

co co CM1 1 27

,2 ^

CD t ^ O> LO co <z> CM co co

•»— o o CD CM CM r—

11 .

18 ,8

(y ea

rs o

f sc

ho ol

in g)

•y ea

rs o

f sc

ho ol

in g)

17 9

do lla

rs )

ed uc

at i

3d uc

at i(

nc om

M ot

I Fa

tI P

an 36

9 83

7 45

CO 1— I O

57 4

CO O>

r^. r ^ CO o o CO t ^ CM • * • * CM

' ^ OO O OO T - Csi Csi o o I*** CO CO CO

?: o _>.

)f si

bl in

( ib

e r(

ic e

ag e

14 (0

-1 )

Je m

ie s

03 re • o o

T— en ™ <=> Ï - O

lo lic

( th

er n

lit ya

o w<

CO m CM oo

CO o o oo h - lO

CO -«r CNI CD CO •<«•

o CM o CNJ

1 k

M er

C ol

o CM

.8 81

46 4

699

ca l

d co

lle ge

( 0-

1) sy

eh ol

c sn

co ur

a .8

71 .3

07 l O

05 0

57 1

13 .

s of

s ch

oo lin

S o

ie P

o ro c .£ </) Q. Ll. O

oo l o CO oo

CM CD

oo lO CM T -

CD C3 IO • ^ OO

fO -1

)

cn o

2 o

Du th

g ro

up s

(0 -1

) tio

ns ,

S oc

ia l w

el fa

¡I

c, c

or 1 r

ita bi

b o

g CL B d E

aj ro NCO co D

T 3

ro • a

S CO

S fe <n „ - 03 , ,

i cn ro 03

Civic Returns to Higher Education • 4 2 3

9 percenc of graduaees compared eo 4 percene of non-graduaees voluneeer for charieable organizaeions or social welfare groups.

Methods My analysis proceeds in cbree seeps. Firse, I eseimaee ebe probabiliey an indi- vidual compleees college relaeive eo individuals who compleeed high school bue did noe compleee college. I generaee eseimaeed propensiey scores (Rosenbaum and Rubin 1983, 1984) for each individual in ehe sample using a logie regression model of ehe following form:

*-o (1)

where P. is ehe propensiey score for ehe ¿'* observaeion (/ = 1, ... , «); d. indicaees wheeher or noe individual / compleced college; and X represencs a veccor of ob- served pre-college covariaces. I invoke an "ignorabilicy" or "seleceion on observ- ables" assumpeion ehae condieional on a rich see of pre-ereaemenc covariaces, chere are no addicional confounders becween college and non-college graduaees.

Second, I eseimaee effeces of college compleeion on civic pareicipaeion under an assumpeion of college effece homogeneiey. I evaluaee average effeccs of college on civic pareicipaeion using logie regression models conerolling for che eseimaeed propensiey score:

l o g - í í - = a + S < , + ^ / ^ (2)

where c. is civic pareicipaeion for ehe ¿'* observaeion; d. indicaees wheeher or noe an individual compleeed college; and P. represenes ehe propensiey for college compleeion as eseimaeed by Equaeion 1. The parameeer S is ehe average effece of college compleeion on civic pareicipaeion. Rosenbaum and Rubin (1983, 1984) demonseraee ic is sufficiene eo condieion on ehe propensiey score as a funceion of Xraeher ehan JTieself, which I do here for simplicicy.

Third, I assess wheeher or noe heeerogeneiey in ehe propensiey for college is associaeed wich heeerogeneiey in effeces of college. Thae is, I allow S in Equaeion 2 eo be heeerogeneous. I firsc group respondencs inco propensicy score scraca such chac average values of che propensicy score and each covari- aee do noe significanely differ beeween college and non-college graduaees {p < .001). Then in level 1, I eseimaee propensiey score seraeum-specific effeccs using logic regression models:

where che s subscripc indicaces che propensicy score scracum and all ocher cerms are defined above. Subjects indexed by / are nesced in propensicy score scraca indexed by s. Separace logic regression models are eseimaeed for eacb propensicy score

424 • Social Forces 89(2)

stratum. In level 2,1 estimate the trend in the variation of effects using variance- weighted least squares regressions:

S, = S, + 7 5 + £, ^ (4)

where level-1 slopes {S^ are regressed on propensity score rank (5). °i represents the level-2 intercept (i.e., the predicted value of the effect of college completion for the lowest propensity individuals), and y represents the level-2 slope (i.e., the change in the effect of college on civic participation with each one unit change to a higher propensity score stratum).*^ I use variance-weigh ted least squares to estimate Equation 4 so that I do not assume homogeneity of variances across the S's.

Results

The first step in the analysis is to derive estimated propensity scores for each individual in the sample using the set of pre-college covariates described in Table 1. The results, reported in Table 2, support the literature on the determinants of college completion. Black and Hispanic students are significantly less likely to complete college. High socio-economic background, cognitive ability, academic achievement in high school, friends' plans for college and parents' encouragement for college also strongly predict college completion.

Table 3 provides the estimated average effects of college completion on volun- teering in (1. civic, community, or youth groups; and (2. charitable organizations or social welfare groups. The results suggest college graduates are about 2.1 times more likely (e''''') to volunteer for civic, community, or youth groups than non- college graduates and about 1.7 times more likely (e"') to volunteer for charitable organizations or social welfare groups. Propensity for college also has a significant positive effect on vounteering.^

I next ask whether average college effects on civic participation reported in Table 3 conceal underlying systematic heterogeneity of college effects. I first gener- ate propensity score strata such that within each interval of the propensity score the average propensity score and the means of each covariate do not significantly differ between college and non-college graduates (Becker and Ichino 2002). As expected, for college graduates the frequency count increases with the propensity score whereas for non-college graduates the count decreases. Table 4 provides covariate means by propensity score strata and college completion. These statis- tics demonstrate the characteristics of typical individuals within each stratum. Individuals with parents who were high school drop-outs, who have four siblings, low ability, enrolled in a non-college-prep track, and who had friends who had not planned to go to college are characteristic of stratum 1. By contrast, individuals with parents who went to college, who have two siblings, high ability, enrolled in a college-prep track, who had parents who encouraged college and friends who planned to complete college are characteristic of stratum 7. However, not all covariates are positively correlated with one another within propensity score strata.

Civic Returns to Higher Education • 4 2 5

Table 2: Propensity Score Logit Regression Model Predicting College Completion Male -.505*"

(.125) Black -.457"

(.170) Hispanic - . 6 9 1 "

(.208) Mother's education -.307*

(.127) (Mother's education)^ .018**

(.005) Father's education .106*"

(.025) Parents' income (1979 $1O,OOOs) .145**

(.056) Intact family .298 f

(.157) Number of siblings -.031

(.031) Catholic -.174

(.144) Southern residence .044

(.137) Cognitive ability 1.637*"

(.123) College preparatory .666***

(.129) Parents' encouragement .677***

(.155) Friends' schooling plans . 172**

(.031) Constant -5.075*"

L903) Waldx' 548.26 P>x' ,000 Notes: Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. Regression is weighted for sample selection and nonresponse. N = 3,074. t p < .10 *p < .05 **p < .01 * " p < .001 (two-tailed tests)

Table 5 and Figure 1 report results from the multi-level model of heteroge- neous college effects on civic participation. The level-2 slopes for both indicators of volunteering reveal significant declines in the effect of college completion as the propensity for college increases. For civic, community and youth groups, the level-2 slope indicates a significant .28 reduction in the college effect for each unit change in propensity score rank. That is, level-1 estimates range from college graduates being 10 times more likely (e^^ '̂) to volunteer for civic, community or youth groups than non-college graduates in stratum 1 to an (insignificant) two times more likely (ê *̂ ) in stratum 7. Similarly for charitable organizations and

) 2***

426 • Social Forces B9(2)

Table 3: Homogenous Effects of College Completion on Civic Participation Civic, Community or Charitable Organizations or

Logit Regression iVIodeis Youth Groups Social Weifare Groups College Completion

Propensity Score

Constant

.743** (.245) .778*

(.362) -3.103***

(.134)

.555* (.283) .7581

(.421) -3.340** (.149)

Waldx' 50.14 27.75 P>Y^ .m ^00 Notes: Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. Regressions are weighted for sample selection and nonresponse. Propensity scores were estimated by a logit regression model of college completion on the set of pre-college covariates as reported in Table 2. N = 3,074. t p < . 1 0 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p < .001 (two-tailed tests)

social welFare groups, the level-2 slope indicates a significant .29 reduction in the college effect For each unit change in propensity score rank. Factors range From college graduates being four times more likely to volunteer than non-college graduates in stratum 1 to .5 times as likely to volunteer in stratum 7. Figure 1 graphically depicts the results presented in Table 5. "Dots" in Figure 1 represents point estimates of level-1 slopes, i.e., stratum-specific logit regression effects of college on civic participation. The linear plots in the figure are the level-2 slopes. The figure depicts the similarity in the decline in the effect oFcollege completion on both Forms oF civic participation as the propensity For college increases.

Levels oF volunteering by propensity score strata and college completion, shown in Table 4, provide further information as to the pattern in college effects. There is little differentiation in the level of volunteering in civic, community and youth groups by propensity score strata among the college educated: Roughly 15percent oFcollege graduates in stratum 1 and 15 percent in stratum 7 volunteer For civic, community or youth groups. By contrast, less than 2 percent oF non- college graduates volunteer For civic, community or youth groups in stratum 1 compared to about 8 percent in stratum 7. Thus, while levels oF volunteering by socio-economic background are equalized among college graduates, there is a socio-economic gradient in volunteering among non-college graduates - gen- erating large observed effects oF college among disadvantaged individuals who complete college. For charitable organizations and social welFare groups, while I observe a larger percentage oFlow propensity college graduates volunteering than high propensity graduates, results likewise suggest that the differential between college and non-college graduates is larger For the low than high strata.

Civic Returns to Higher Education • 427

2 Si

c/} a> Ol

_a>

"5 U TJ

S 2 V) 2o

2 Q.

re 0)

E o 0 O T3

.1 CÜ

g o

c¿

K-t

^-^

x-4!,

q CD c o CM ' " T-:

'CM

•51.COCOCOUOT—

c N o o i 3 t c M o CM

0>OOCNJCNJCI3COCO.T— T— C O I O C'^'=i"cooocot^cocDC3c:D coooio

CMCÔCM ' C M

CMCMCNÍ ' C M

co c o . CD co .

CNJ CM T-^ C M .«— T— CNJ

£iíiQ?9K2<^gcDioiocMio CO Tj- oo o CM <(— CD

T— T— CO co

d j CD c o

. CD 00 co

I O> CM .*

CD CD CD

CD en

3 o o •*=

'̂i . ^ CTJ CD

03 >

.^ 'û

jn ro . g

1 _

o X

ro CD

.Sä

ro CD

8 i (D o

S S- Q . CD

il 'S "O

1111

x: '03 o s ro ro

Oî B

E o o

428 • Social Forces 89[2)

Table 5: Heterogeneous Effects of College Completion on Civic Participation Civic, Community or Charitable Organizations

Youth Groups or Social Welfare Groups Level-1 Slopes Logit Regression P-Score Stratum 1 : [.0-.05) 2.381 ** 1.444 f

Sample size = 945 (.720) (.781) P-Score Stratum 2: [.05-.1) 1.580* 1.590

Sample size = 423 (.718) (.976) P-Score Stratum 3: [.1-.2) .610 .510

Sample size = 428 (.569) (.631) P-Score Stratum 4: [.2-.4) .823* 691

Sample size = 474 (.348) (.468) P-Score Stratum 5: [.4-.6) -.011 1.138*

Sample size = 313 (.409) (.529) P-Score Stratum 6: [.6-.8) .818 -.119

Sample size = 266 (.650) (.471) P-Score Stratum 7: [.8-1.0) .788 -.470

Sample size = 225 (.770) (.681) Level-2 Slopes -.279* -.293* Variance-weighted Least Squares (.131) (.131)

Notes: Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. Regressions are weighted for sample selection and nonresponse. Propensity scores were estimated by the logit regression model of college completion on the set of pre-college covariates reported in Table 2. Propensity score strata were balanced such that mean values of covariates and the propensity score did not significantly differ between college and non-college graduates. N = 3,074. tp < .10 *p < .05 **p < .01 (two-tailed tests)

Discussion Americans' commiemene eo civic pareicipaeion is a defining feacure of che culcural fabric of che Uniced Scaces (Tocqueville 1960[1835]). Scholars have argued chac educaeional aeeainmene is a crieical decerminanc of civic pareicipaeion. Schools funceion eo embed ehe nacion's youch wich moral and civic norms and prepare chem CO pareicipaee in an informed and ineelligene manner. The educaeed also become eargees of mobilizaeion for civic organizaeions and groups. While some scholars have queseioned che degree co which seleceion bias influences ehe ob- served relationship beeween educaeion and civic pareicipaeion, mose researchers conclude ehae chere is some causal effecc of educaeion on participation.

Despiee an exeensive lieeraeure on ehe average impace of educaeion on civic pareicipaeion, prior research has noe considered heeerogeneiey in civic reeurns eo higher educaeion by seleceion ineo college. Given eheoreeical bases for variaeion in effeces and sociological concern for variaeion in effeces, ehis is an imporeane omission in ehe lieeraeure. This seudy provides empirical evidence as co which seg-

Civic Returns to Higher Education • 4 2 9

Figure 1. Multi-level Models of College Effects on Civic Participation

2.4 - o

2 - g 1 1.6 o

•i 1.2

.8 -

> a>

O H

-.4 -

Civic Level-2 slope (SE) = -.28 (0.13)*

Charitable Level-2 slope (SE) = -.29 (0.13)*

.0-.05 .05-. 1 .1-.2 .2-.4 .4-.6

Propensity Score Strata

.6-.8 .8-1.0

o Level-1 Civic

• Level-1 Charitable

ments of the college-going population may yield the largest civic returns. I find that college completion has the largest impact on volunteering among individuals least likely to complete college. The effect of college generally decreases as the pro- pensity for college increases. This pattern in effects is a result of the equalization of volunteering by socio-economic background among college graduates relative to the socio-economic gradient in volunteering among non-college graduates. My findings complement prior sociological research that shows that the relationship between social origins and destinations as measured by occupational status is mucb weaker for college graduates than for non-college graduates (Hout 1988), as well as recent findings that college is an acutely consequential life-altering event among disadvantaged, low propensity college goers (Brand and Davis forthcom- ing; Brand and Xie 2010). My findings do not render the results of prior studies of civic returns to higher education invalid; rather, my results demonstrate that aggregating heterogeneous college effects across individuals classed by their likeli- hood of college conceals the potential equalization of socio-economic differentials in civic engagement via widespread access to higher education.

This study is not without limitations. The empirical patterns approach hinges on the assumption that I have adequately accounted for all covariates influ-

430 • Social Forces 89{2)

encing college attainment; measurement of theoretically relevant confounders makes this assumption more plausible, but not necessarily true. Unobserved factors, such as motivation or conscientiousness, could influence both selection into college and civic participation. Still, there must be differential selection bias across propensity score strata to render spurious the observed trend in effects. For example, if the effects of college on civic participation among low propensity individuals were more strongly subject to selection bias than effects for high propensity individuals, the pattern in effects would be flatter than that which I observe. Gonversely, attrition is more likely among the less civically active. As low propensity non-college goers who are the least civically active may be more prone to nonresponse, there may be downward bias on the college effect estimate in the low propensity strata and upward bias on the level-2 downward slope I observe, yielding conservative observed estimates of the level-2 slopes. It is unfortunate that more measures are not available in the NLSY to test this possibility and to study volunteering over time.

This study is also limited in that I examine one aspect, momentous as it may be, of educational achievement. One avenue of future research is to examine heterogeneous effects of elite college attendance on civic participation, like Brand and Halaby (2006) do for wage and occupational achievement. Suggestive of pos- sible heterogeneity in effects of elite college attendance, Bowen and Bok (1998) found that black alumni of highly selective colleges report that college made greater contributions to their oral communication skills and positive attitudes toward community service than their white counterparts. Future work might also consider whether evidence supports some of my postulated mechanisms for larger effects of education among low propensity college goers. For example, do low-propensity college graduates participate in the communities of their youth? And if so, what is the impact on the residents of those neighborhoods?

Scholars of civic engagement have long focused on the individual and institu- tional correlates of participation. Much of this work is motivated by a conviction that participatory inequalities patterned by socio-economic status are democrati- cally troublesome. Such inequality allows some individuals to exert disproportion- ate influence over societal functioning. My findings reveal that individuals with a disadvantaged family background may effectively narrow the gap of participatory disadvantage and lessen socio-economic inequality in social influence by way of a college education.

Notes 1. While current rhetoric on the purpose of education centers on preparation for

economic roles in society (Grubb and Lazerson 2004), education's influence on civic participation remains a central theme in social and political discourse.

2. Häuser (2000) finds that education has a significant effect on civic participation net of a reliable measure of cognitive ability.

Civic Returns to Higher Education • 4 3 1

3. Instrumental variable estimates can be interpreted as local average treatment effects, effects that pertain to units induced by the instrument, or in this case, individuals on the margin of school continuation.

4. A recently debated issue is whether relative levels of education affect participation similarly to absolute levels of education. According to Nie, Junn and Stehlik-Barry (1996), participation is negatively affected by relative education. That is, when an educational credential is rare, the holder of that credential is conferred considerable social status which incites participation. However, Helliwell and Putnam (2007), comparing the education of geographically proximate individuals rather than a national average, find that participation is positively affected by relative as well as absolute education. The debate continues as scholars try to reconcile Falling aggregate levels of civic participation in the face of rising aggregate levels of education.

5. I impute missing values based on all available background covariates for variables with about 5% or more missing cases: parents' income (477 values), high school college-preparatory program (283 values), and parents' encouragement (129 values). Multiple imputation is currently not allowed with the heterogeneous treatment efFects procedure used in these analyses. Because the propensity score strata might differ among the imputed datasets, strata would have to be predefined to combine the estimates from different imputations.

6. A focus on variation in treatment effects by observed covariates is limited, as I overlook heterogeneity in effects due to unobserved variables. Without the ignorability assumption, however, alternative models for heterogeneous treatment effects, such as switching regression or marginal treatment effects, depend upon strong parametric or exclusion assumptions about unobservable variables.

7. Models with the Full set of covariates rather than the propensity score support the literature on civic participation: Sex, race, ethnicity and academic achievement are related to civic participation in the expected directions. The coefficients For college completion in models with the full set oFcovariates are substantively similar to those with the propensity score alone. Results are available upon request.

References Almond, Gabriel, and Sydney Verba. 1963. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and

Democracy in Five Nations. Sage. Angrist, Joshua D., and Alan B. Krueger. 1999. "Empirical Strategies in Labor Economics."

Pp. 1277-366. Handbook of Labor Economics, Volume 3A. O. Ashenfelter and D. Card, editors. Elsevier.

Astin, Alexander, Linda Sax and J. Avalos. 1999. "Long-Term EfFects of Volunteerism during the Undergraduate Years." Review of Higher Education 22(2): 187-202.

Becker, Gary S. 1964. Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education. Columbia University Press.

Becker, Sascha, and Andrea Ichino. 2002. "Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Based

on Propensity Scores." Stata Journal2{A):?>5%-77. Bowen, William G., and Bok, Derek. 1998. The Shape of the River: Long-term Consequences

of Considering Race in College and University Admissions. Princeton University Press. Brady, Henry, Kay L. Schlozman and Sydney Verba. 1999. "Beyond SES: A Resource

Model of Political Participation." American Political Science Review 89(2):269-95.

432 • Social Forces %W)

Brady, Henry, Sydney Verba and Kay L. Schlozman. 1995. "Prospecting for Participants: Rational Expectations and the Recruitment of Political Activists." American Political

Science Review 93(l):153-69. Brand, Jennie E., and Dwight Davis. Forthcoming. "The Impact of College Education

on Fertility: Evidence for Heterogeneous Effects." Demography Brand, Jennie E., and Charles N. Halaby. 2006. "Regression and Matching Estimates

ofthe Effects of Elite College Attendance on Educational and Career Achievement."

Social Science Research 35(3):749-70. Brand, Jennie E., and Yu Xie. 2010. "Who Benefits Most from College? Evidence for

Negative Selection in Heterogeneous Economic Returns to Higher Education."

American Sociological Review 75(2):273-302. Brehm, John, and Wendy Rahn. 1997. "Individual-Level Evidence for the Causes and

Consequences of Social Capital." American foumal of Political Science 4l{5):999-\025. Card, David. 1999. "The Causal Effect of Education on Earnings." Pp. 1801 -63. Handbook

of Labor Economics, Volume 3A. O. Ashenfelter and D. Card, editors. Elsevier. . 2001. "Estimating the Return to Schooling: Progress on Some Persistent

Econometric Problems." Econometrica 69(5): 1127-60. Carneiro, Pedro, James J. Heckman and Edward Vytlacil. 2006. "Estimating Marginal

and Average Returns to Education." Unpublished manuscript. Available at: http:// www.ucl.ac.uk/-uctppca/school_all_2006-10-30b_mms.pdf.

Checkoway, Barry. 2001. "Renewing the Civic Mission of the American Research University." The Journal of Higher Education 72(2): 125-47.

Cogan, J.J., and P. Morris. 2001. "The Development of Civic Values: An Overview." International Journal of Educational Research 3 5 ( 1 ) : 1 -9.

Dee, Thomas S. 2004. "Are there Civic Returns to Educationr Journal of Public Economics 88(9-10):l697-720.

de Tocqueville, Alexis. 1960[1835]. Democracy in America. George Lawrence, translator. J.P. Mayer, editor. Double Day, Anchor Books.

Durkheim, Emile. 1925. L'Education Morale. Alcan/PUE . 1933. Division of Labor in Society. Free Press.

Freeman, Richard B. 1997. "Working for Nothing: The Supply of Volunteer Labor." Journal of Labor Economics 15(1):S14O-S166.

Gibson, John. 2001. "Unobservable Family Effects and the Apparent External Benefits of Education." Economics of Education Review 20(3):225-33.

Giroux, Henry. 2009. "Obama's Dilemma: Postpartisan Politics and the Crisis of American Education." Harvard Educational Review 79{2):250-66.

Gesthuisen, Maurice, Tom van der Meer and Peer Scheepers. 2008. "Education and Dimensions of Social Capital: Do Educational Effects Differ due to Educational Expansion and Social Security Expenditure?" European Sociological Review 24(5):617-32.

Grubb, W. Norton, and Marvin Lazerson. 2004. The Education Gospel: The Economic Power of Schooling. Harvard University Press.

Häuser, Seth. 2000. "Education, Ability, and Civic Engagement in the Contemporary United States." Social Science Research 29(4):556-82.

Heckman, James, Sergio Urzua and Edward Vytlacil. 2006. "Understanding Instrumental Variables in Models with Essential Heterogeneity." The Review of Economics and

Civic Returns to Higher Education • 4 3 3

Helliwell, John E, and Robert D. Putnam. 2007. "Education and Social Capital." Eastern Economic fournal 33( 1 ): 1 -19.

Hout, Michael. 1988. "More Universalism, Less Structural Mobility: The American

Occupational Structure in the \9S0s." American fournal of Sociology 93{6):\358-l400. Huang, Jian, Henriette van den Brink and Wim Groot. 2008. "A Meta-Analysis of the

Effect of Education on Social Capital." Economics of Education Review 28(4):454-64. Janoski, Thomas, and John Wilson. 1995. " Pathways to Voluntarism: Eamily Socialization

and Status Transmission Models." Social Forces 74(l):271-92. Johnson, Danette Ifert. 2004. "Relationships between College Experiences and Alumni

Participation in the Community." Review of Higher Education 27(2): 169-85. McPherson, J. Miller, and Thomas Rotólo. 1996. "Testing a Dynamic Model of Social

Composition." American Sociological Review 61 (2): 179-202. Mincer, Jacob. 1974. Schooling, Experience, and Earnings. Columbia University Press. Morgan, Stephen, and Christopher Winship. 2007. Counterfactuals and Causal Inference:

Methoé and Principles for Social Research. Cambridge University Press. Musick, Marc, and John Wilson. 2008. Volunteers: A Social Profile. Indiana University Press. Nie, Norham H., Jane Junn and Kenneth Stehlik-Barry 1996. Education and Democratic

Citizenship in America. University of Chicago Press. Putnam, Robert D. 1995. "Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social

Capital in America." Political Science and Politics 28(4):664-83. . 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon

&L Schuster. Rosenbaum, Paul R., and Donald B. Rubin. 1983. "The Central Role of the Propensity

Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects." Biometrika 70(l):4l-55. _. 1984. "Reducing Bias in Observational Studies Using Subclassification on the

Propensity Score." fournal of the American Statistical Association 79(387):516-24. Rosenstone, Steven J., and John Mark Hansen. 1993. Mobilization, Participation, and

Democracy in America. Macmillan. Verba, Sidney and Norman H. Nie. 1972. Participation in America: Political Democracy

and Social Equity. Harper & Row. Verba, Sidney, Kay L Schlozman and Henry E. Brady 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic

Voluntarism in American Politics. Harvard University Press. Willis, Robert J., and Sherwin Rosen. 1979. "Education and Self-Selection." 7ó«r«a/o/

Political Economy 87(5):S7-36. Wilson, John, and Marc Musick. 1997a. "Work and Volunteering: The Long Arm of the

Job" Social Forces 76( 1 ) :251 -72. . 1997b. "Who Cares?: Toward an Integrated Theory of Volunteer Work." American

Sociological Review 62{Octy.694-713. _. 1998. "The Contribution of Social Resources to Volunteering." Sociat Science

Quarterly 79{4):799-8\4.

Wilson, John. 2000. "Volunteering." Annual Review of Sociology 26:215-40.

copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.