Essays on Human Capital Investment Decisions: K-12, Higher Education, and the Labor Market

Abstract

In this dissertation, I use applied econometric methods to explore a myriad of human capital investments that individuals choose in K-12, higher education, and labor market contexts. The findings provide insight into how public and education policies shape what and where students, particularly women, study and/or work. The first paper studies the impact of state reproductive rights laws on women’s college choices after the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated the constitutional right to abortion in \textit{Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization} (2022). Using college application data from the Common App, I find that abortion bans caused a significant decrease in the proportion of high-achieving women who applied to a school in states with abortion bans. Effects were larger for applicants from states without abortion bans, as well as for applicants from the most liberal counties in the United States. Measurable effects first emerged in the 2021-22 college application season after several Court actions suggested that it would overturn \textit{Roe v. Wade} (1973) the following year, increased in magnitude in the 2022-23 college application season, and persisted in the 2023-24 college application season. The second paper examines the effect of a district-level policy change to a K-12 centralized school assignment system on school choice. The policy change, which occurred in a large urban school district in the Northeast, increased families’ access to nearby high-quality schools and provided them with new information about school quality. Using district administrative data, I find that families chose higher-quality schools as their preferred first-choice school when their access to these schools increased. I also find suggestive evidence that gaining information about school quality affected school choices above and beyond improvements to school choice sets. These findings coincided with a decrease in the number of schools that families could choose from, suggesting that school choice decisions can improve as options decrease. The third paper describes the relationship between non-pecuniary workplace preferences and college majors, occupations, and the gender pay gap. I use data on first-time bachelor’s degree-seeking traditional undergraduate students from the 2012/17 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study. First, I find that workplace preferences became less important relative to salary as students approached the workforce. Second, I find that workplace preferences, particularly preferences for helping others as a part of one’s job, were positively associated with female-dominated majors and occupations (e.g., education and health care fields) and negatively associated with male-dominated majors and occupations (e.g., business and STEM fields). Third, I find that preferences for helping others explain a significant portion of the early-career gender wage gap; women were more likely to choose jobs within the same field that involved helping others and were associated with lower wages.