Skip to main content

Table 2 Descriptive statistics

From: To what extent do secondary effects shape migrants’ educational trajectories after lower-secondary education?

 

Total

No migrant background

Second-generation migrants

First-generation migrants

Prior achievement

School-leaving certificate (%)

    

No or lower-secondary certificate

20.2%

18.7%

23.2%

28.4%

Extended lower-secondary certificate

13.2%

11.6%

16.6%

21.5%

Intermediate-secondary certificate

66.6%

69.7%

60.2%

50.1%

GPA school-leaving certificate (1 = very good → 6 = insufficient)

2.6

2.6

2.7

2.8

Language abilities and skills: Receptive vocabulary

54.2

56.2

49.3

47.0

Rational choice (university entrance qualification)

Benefit (B)

4.8

4.8

4.8

4.8

Expected probability (p)

2.8

2.8

2.8

2.7

Importance of upward mobility (UM)

3.8

3.7

3.9

4.0

Probability of upward mobility (c)

4.7

4.7

4.7

4.7

Costs (C)

1.9

1.9

1.8

2.0

Expected probability (p)

2.8

2.8

2.8

2.7

Educational motivation (B + c * UM)

8.6

8.5

8.8

8.8

Investment risk (C/p)

0.9

0.9

0.8

1.0

Social influence

Parental educational expectations as perceived by adolescents (% university)

23.3%

17.9%

38.1%

40.5%

Share of friends with aspirations for university entrance qualification (1 = none, 2 = almost none, 3 = less than half, 4 = about half, 5 = more than half, 6 = almost all, 7 = all)

3.3

3.3

3.4

3.2

Social origin

Parents’ highest socioeconomic status (ISEI)

46.5

49.0

40.1

36.9

Parents’ highest education (CASMIN) (%)

Low

9.1%

2.8%

25.3%

33.4%

Intermediate

81.4%

86.3%

69.2%

61.2%

High

9.5%

10.9%

5.5%

5.4%

Other control variables

Gender (% female)

46.9%

45.9%

51.4%

45.1%

N sample

5,437

4,041

1,037

359

Row percentages

100.0%

74.3%

19.1%

6.6%

  1. Coefficients for federal state are not shown due to data sensitivity issues. Data: NEPS SC4 SUF 12.0.0, column percentages or means of imputed data (m = 30), own calculations