“College Major and Preferences: The Case of Religion”

+“Education and Values:

Family, Careers and Society”

Miles KimballColter Mitchell

Arland ThorntonLinda Young-DeMarco

University of Michigan

All authors contributed substantially to this paper, and names are listed alphabetically to reflect the substantial contribution of each.

Paper available at http://paa2006.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=60182

Higher education is associated with attitudes towards

Individual achievement

Marriage and intergenerational relationships

Divorce, cohabitation, and childbearing

Careers, fulfillment, and community service

Religion

Focus of Research

Causal Relationships College Major Values

Focus of Research

Causal Relationships College Major Values

Focus of Research

Reciprocal Causal Relationships College Major Values

Theory

Three Streams of Thought: Science Developmentalism Postmodernism

Science

Alternative authority structureAlternative view of life and purpose

God not necessary for explaining life Humans related to animals Mind=Brain (neurological explanations of

spiritual experience) Little room in Physics for an immortal soul

separate from the body.

Developmentalism

Narrative of progress:

Individual over family

Materialism

Equality and Freedom

Postmodernism

Rejection of absolute or universal standards

Epistemological doubt

Social and political power determines what counts as true and right.

College Major

Major Science Postmodernism Developmentalism

All Majors + + +

Humanities ++

Social Science ++ ++

Natural Science ++

Two Fundamental Hypotheses

Hypotheses 1: College major will influence values concerning family, careers, and society

Hypothesis 2: Values will influence the choice of college major

College Major

Major Family Career Society

Humanities - - +

Social Science - - +

Natural Science - ? ?

Monitoring the Future

High school seniors in the United States

The baseline interview takes place during senior year (Time 0)

Time 1 is one or two years after high school

Time 3 is five or six years after high school

How Important Is… (4pt scale)

Family Having a good marriage and family life Being able to give my children better opportunities than I've

had Living close to parents and relatives

Career Being successful in my line of work Having lots of money Being able to find steady work

Society Working to correct social and economic inequalities Making a contribution to society Finding purpose and meaning in my life

College Major Categories

Natural Science Social Science Humanities Other/Undecided No College “Trades” (clerical, vocational/technical,

business, education, and engineering)

Controls

Year of initial survey (1976-1995) Region Gender Parental education Political preferences and beliefs Religion

Analyses

College Major Values

Figure 1Measurement and Structural Effects Model of Personal Values

A0

ε0

η1 η0 η3

A3

ε3

A1

ε1

τ 1 τ 2

ζ1 ζ3

College Major at Time 1

Controls

β1

β2

λ0 λ1 λ3

Var ε0 = Var ε1 = Var ε3

λ 0 = λ1 = λ 3 = 1

Equations

Substantive equations

Measurement equations

3 13 1 3 1 3 0 3

1 01 0 1 1 1 0 1

3 3 3

1 1 1

0 0 0

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

M X

M X

y

y

y

Table 3Predicting Time 3 Attitude from Time 1 Attitude and College Major at Time 1

LISREL Models (Z – ratios in parentheses) N=4173

No

College

Natural Science

Humanities/ Social

Science

Trades

Dependent Variables (Attitude3)

Family .029 (1.56)

-.026 (.988)

-.060 (2.28)

--

Career -.004

(.235) -.062 (2.53)

-.024 (1.01)

--

Society .010

(.056) .037

(1.46) .080

(3.20) --

Analyses

Values College Major College major stability Choosing a new college major

Table 4 Predicting the Stability of Time1 College Majors Through Time3 for the Time1

Attitude (Z-Ratios in Parentheses) N=4173

Not in

College Trades Natural Science Humanities

Social Science

Independent Variables Family .409

(2.72) .208

(0.99) .141

(0.52) .135

(0.35) .016

(0.04) Career -.106

(0.65) .528

(2.05) -.063 (0.20)

-.120 (0.36)

-.363 (0.95)

Society -.276

(1.62) -.530 (2.19)

.201 (0.75)

.185 (0.44)

.534 (1.46)

Table 5Multinomial Logistic Regressions Predicting the Time3 College Major from the Time1 Attitude

for Individuals in College at Time1 Who Indicated a Change in College Major by Time3(Trades is the Omitted Category) (Z-ratios in Parentheses) (N=888)

Natural

Science Humanities Social

Science Trades Independent Variables

Family -.370

(1.16) -.725 (2.53)

-.637 (2.72)

--

Career -.391

(1.28) .226

(0.79) -.039 (0.16)

--

Society .588

(1.96) .735

(2.34) .592

(2.53) --

Summary and Conclusions

College major changes values

Values affect college major choice

Strong causal nexus between values and major life decisions

Table 3Predicting Time 3 Religiosity from Time 1 Religiosity and College Major at Time 1

LISREL Models (Z – ratios in parentheses)

Not in

College

Natural Science

Humanities

Social Science

Trades

Dependent Variables

Religious Attendance

-.032 (2.46)

-.009 (.474)

-.043 (1.87)

-.051 (2.32)

--

Religious Importance

.008 (.615)

-.021 (1.11)

-.065 (2.83)

-.045 (2.05)

--

Table 4 Predicting the Stability of Time1 College Majors Through Time3 for the Time1

Religiosity (Z-Ratios in Parentheses)

Not in

College Natural Science Humanities

Social Science Trades

Independent Variables

Religious Attendance -.160 (5.71)

.057 (1.12)

.006 (0.09)

.108 (1.64)

.065 (1.67)

Religious Importance -.106

(3.53) .020

(0.39) .045

(0.71) .036

(0.57) -.035 (0.85)

Table 5Multinomial Logistic Regressions Predicting the Time3 College Major from the

Time1 Religiosity for Individuals in College at Time1 Who Indicated a Change in College Major by Time3 (Trades is the Omitted Category) (Z-ratios in Parentheses)

Natural

Science Humanities Social

Science Trades Independent Variables

Religious Attendance -.045 (0.87)

.109 (2.06)

-.084 (1.82)

--

Religious Importance -.019

(.35) .158

(2.87) -.048 (1.06)

--

Multipliers:Can these effects explain social change? Many of these ideas affect everyone, regardless

of major (or not attending college)—estimates of differences in effects are a lower bound on the overall size of the effects.

These are the effects after diminishing returns Effects bigger in the past when the ideas were newer Effects bigger in other countries where newer

The total social effects are cumulative over time Colleges train the cultural elites (e.g., news and

entertainment elites).

Is this Economics as well as Sociology?

“Values” = Views about what people should do.

What people think they should do has a big effect on what they actually do. Thus, people’s views about what should be done are an important preference parameter. (Akerlof)

Religion clearly influences values in this sense and a great deal of evidence shows it affects choices. Thus it affects preferences.

3 Origin Questions

What determines:

The available technology?

The structure of strategic interactions?

Preferences?

Where do preferences come from?

Genes

Culture From parents From others

Implications of Evolution for Social Theory

In steady state, it is as if each replicating entity has a utility function it is maximizing Organisms

Humans Animals Plants

Design Plans Genes Ideas (Dawkin’s “Memes”)

Groups Quantitatively, group selection requires equilibrium within the group.

Out of steady state, track population dynamics.

Explaining Trends in Religiosity

More religious people have more children Thus, in terms of transmission of religiosity

from parents to children, there is selection pressure toward greater religiosity.

The only way religiosity will not trend upwards is if there is some other influence pulling religiosity down. Simple regression to the mean? Influence of schooling? Influence of the media?