Exam scheduling can have a long-term impact on both students’ choice of majors and their future earnings. The finding comes from “Persevere or Pivot? The Causal Impact of Grade Shocks on the College Major Decision,” a new paper by Annabel Thorton, a PhD candidate with the Department of Economics. Thorton’s research project looked at random variations in exam timetable characteristics to estimate the effect of grade shocks on students’ major choices. She found that when students write two exams close together, they tend to do more poorly on the second one, resulting in a student’s course grade to drop by approximately 1%. That 1% drop in grade value, a grade shock, then reduced the likelihood of a student majoring in that subject by 11%. Thorton’s data comes from all first-year Faculty of Arts and Sciences students at the University of Toronto.
Students who drop just below major eligibility thresholds for certain programs due to exam schedule compression have a significantly reduced likelihood of entering those programs. Changing plans and enrolling in another major can be costly for students in the long-term, but many of those future implications depend on what major programs the students have switched out of.
“Overall, these students are 12% more likely to graduate in a subject area with lower median earnings than students who choose not to major in that same subject area when the exam schedule is uncompressed,” Thorton explained. “Those kicked out of majors like economics, history, geography, and politics earn less on average after graduation, but people who are kicked out of sociology, anthropology and cinema studies typically tend to earn more when they get kicked out of those programs.”
According to Thorton’s results, these earnings consequences are largest for men, domestic students, and those from low-income neighbourhoods who have less financial flexibility to forgo or reduce summer employment to repeat a course to upgrade.
Thorton’s findings suggest students may need more guidance into what their grades mean for their futures, especially in first year.
“Random factors like getting a cold can affect grades too. It’s more of a student sensitivity issue. We need to teach students that grades are a combination of factors,” Thorton explained. “Orientation is the time for broad messages about the transition from high school to university. We tell incoming first year students that they should expect their grades to drop, but we don’t tell them that when it comes to getting an 84% in one subject and 82% in another, that they should automatically eliminate the subject they got 82% from their major selection.” “University is the place to think about what they want to study and why,” she said. “They should follow their passion, not just their grades. a small margin of difference shouldn’t be a deal-breaker.”
The research provides evidence for many parties to use in examination scheduling and planning.
“Annabel’s research is highly valuable to university administrators as it provides concrete evidence on the impact of exam schedule compression on student outcomes,” said Dwayne Benjamin, a Professor of Economics, a member of Thorton’s supervisory committee, and the Vice Provost of Strategic Enrollment at the University of Toronto. “While administrators may already recognize the challenges posed by tight schedules, having quantitative evidence to support these insights helps inform decisions regarding exam scheduling, sessional dates, and even the design of final exams. This research ensures that policies and logistical decisions are rooted in evidence, supporting better academic outcomes and student well-being. For student communications, the findings suggest that raising awareness about the potential impact of compressed schedules could encourage students to prepare strategically, thereby mitigating some of the adverse effects of their schedule.”
Thorton’s upcoming work also explores the economics of education. “Measuring the Effect of Financial Aid Certainty on Institutional Choice: A Field Experiment” examines the impact of early financial aid guarantees on enrolment decisions at the University of Toronto through a randomized control trial (RCT).
Her previous work, with colleague Alex Ballyk, has investigated whether beliefs about the number and quality of other applicants affect individuals’ job choices and how these beliefs differ by gender. The lab experiment funded, in part by the Institute for Gender and the Economy (GATE), saw participants play versions a job application game where they are ranked based on their performance on a math and science test. Then, without knowing their rank, participants chose between three jobs. Two jobs offered high payoffs to the top-ranked player, while the third guarantees a small payoff to everyone who chooses it. When ranks were assigned based on performance, there were no gender differences in the job choices. When the ranks were randomly assigned, however, men were 52% more likely to choose the higher-paying competitive job, while women were 45% more likely to choose the lower-paying one.
Return to the Department of Economics website.
Scroll more news.