EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

Instructor Gender and Student Registration: An Analysis of Preferences

KimMarie McGoldrick and Peter Schuhmann

Education Economics, 2002, vol. 10, issue 3, 241-260

Abstract: The present study uses conjoint analysis to examine college students' choices of elective courses. The relative contributions to student satisfaction or 'utility' of six course and instructor attributes are computed. Results suggest that choice is in large part a function of the perceived interest in course topic, the applicability of course material to future career opportunities, and the time of day the course is offered. A relative preference for low levels of course and instructor rigor may suggest that students also place a high premium on expected grade. The gender of the instructor does not appear to influence the registration choices of most students, but may affect registration decisions made by students that do not belong to a fraternity or sorority, students with low grade point averages, and sophomores. The implication of these results for gender biases in student evaluations is discussed.

Date: 2002
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/09645290210127480 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:edecon:v:10:y:2002:i:3:p:241-260

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/CEDE20

DOI: 10.1080/09645290210127480

Access Statistics for this article

Education Economics is currently edited by Caren Wareing and Steve Bradley

More articles in Education Economics from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().

 
Page updated 2025-03-22
Handle: RePEc:taf:edecon:v:10:y:2002:i:3:p:241-260