Stratification of Public Universities and Students’ Segregation

IF 0.7 4区经济学 Q3 ECONOMICS

Hacienda Publica Espanola-Review of Public Economics Pub Date : 2013-06-29 DOI:10.7866/HPE-RPE.13.2.4

J. Villalonga

引用次数: 1

Abstract

We present a model which allows us to show that stratification of public universities, according to the quality they offer and the quality of students they select, is a plausible result even in a public university system where tuition fees are uniform and decided by the administration. This result is similar to that observed in private and competitive university systems. We prove that it is very unlikely that segregation and stratification could be avoided by subsidizing those universities that are more inefficient. We show also that even if stratification and segregation could be removed through subsidies, it would be at the cost of reducing quality of education at the whole university system.

查看原文本刊更多论文

公立大学的分层与学生隔离

我们提出了一个模型，该模型使我们能够表明，即使在学费统一并由行政部门决定的公立大学系统中，公立大学根据其提供的质量和选择的学生质量进行分层也是一个合理的结果。这一结果与私立和竞争激烈的大学系统中观察到的结果相似。我们证明，通过补贴那些效率较低的大学来避免种族隔离和分层是非常不可能的。我们还表明，即使分层和隔离可以通过补贴消除，这将以降低整个大学系统的教育质量为代价。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Hacienda Publica Espanola-Review of Public Economics Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Finance

CiteScore

0.90

自引率

14.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： Hacienda Pública Española/Review of Public Economics welcomes submissions on all areas of public economics. We seek to publish original and innovative research, applied and theoretical, related to the economic analysis of Government intervention. For example, but not exclusively: Taxation, Redistribution, Health, Education, Pensions, Governance, Fiscal Policy and Fiscal Federalism. In addition to regular submissions, the journal welcomes submissions of: -Survey Reviews, containing surveys of the literature regarding issues of interest in the Public Economics field; -Policy oriented reviews, showing the current contributions of Public Economics in relation to relevant contemporary issues affecting public decision-makers in the real world (Policy Watch); -Comments of previously published articles. Contributions to this section should be limited to a maximum of 2 000 words (12 pages). If deemed adequate, the authors of the commented article will be given the opportunity to react in a Reply. Both Comment and Reply will be published together. Articles for the Survey Reviews and Policy Watch section are subject to the same double blind reviwing procedure. The adequacy of Comments submitted for publication will be evaluated by the Executive Editors.