哪類孩子最受教？從政大校務資料看學生表現

Student College Performance under the Multiple Entrance Policy - Evidence from Administrative Data of National Chengchi University

李浩仲(Hao-Chung Li) ； 李文傑(Wen-Chieh Lee) ； 連賢明(Hsien-Ming Lien) ； 王平(Ping Wang) ； 簡錦漢(Kamhon Kan)

《經濟論文叢刊》 48卷2期 (2020/06) Pp. 139-185

https://doi.org/10.6277/TER.202006_48(2).0001

摘要

本文使用政大自2002至2015年的校務資料探討不同管道入學學生的表現差異。結果顯示：推薦甄選學生有最好的學業成就，其次爲個人申請學生，再次之爲考試分發學生。然而在控制學測成績後，個人申請和考試分發學生成績差距變小，尤其在2007年後兩者差距幾乎消失。我們亦觀察到即使在控制學測成績後推薦甄選學生持續有亮眼的學業表現。就非學業活動表現來說，我們發現非考試分發學生參與情形較爲活躍，但這當中一部份可用學測成績和活動參與的正相關性來解釋。最後，本文建構了一組學業配適度指標，協助我們瞭解那一種入學制度較能夠選出具備合適學業能力比較優勢的學生。結果顯示，自2011年起，非考試分發管道入學學生其學業配適度不如考試分發學者，尤其是來自低PR高中與低所得居住地的學生。

關鍵字

多元入學 ； 學業表現 ； 非學業表現

並列摘要

This study uses the 2002-2015 administrative data of National Chengchi University to compare the performance of students entering through different tracks. Academically speaking, students admitted through high-school referral (REFER) performed the best, followed by those admitted through individual applications (APPLY). Students entering via joint examination and placement (JEP) on average performed least favorably. However, the academic difference between APPLY and JEP students were mainly due to their academic preparation before entering university. In particular, once we controlled for their score difference in the General Scholastic Ability Test (GSAT), academic performance in the university between APPLY and JEP students disappeared after 2007. On the other hand, REFER students still showed a strong academic advantage even after we controlled for GSAT scores. Also, we found that REFER and APPLY students were more willing to participate in school activities and join student clubs, though a substantial portion of this inclination can be explained by their GSAT scores. Finally, we devise an index to measure the scholastic match of each student to his/her department of study. The results suggest that since 2011, APPLY and JEP students on average have lower scores on this index, especially the ones from low PR high schools and low income areas.

並列關鍵字

multiple entrance policy ； academic performance ； nonacademic performance

參考文獻

王秀槐 (2006), “我國大學新設科系分布型態與趨勢之研究,” 《高等教育》, 1(1), 111-148。 (Wang, Hsiou-Huai (2006), “The Patterns of Distribution and Concentration of New Programs Established by Universities inTaiwan,” Journal of Higher Education, 1(1), 111–148.)

王順平 (2007), “文化資本、社會資本、與多元入學,” 《研習資訊》, 24(3), 81-94。 (Wang, Shun-Ping (2007), “Cultural Capital, Social Capital, and Multiple Enrollment,” Yen Hsi Tzu Hsün, 24(3), 81–94.)

田芳華與傅祖壇 (2009), “大學多元入學制度 — 學生家庭社經背景與學業成就之比較,” 《教育科學研究期刊》, 54(1), 209-233。 (Tien, Flora F. and Tsu-Tan Fu (2009), “Multi-Channel College Entrance System: Relationship between Family Background, Academic Achievement and Entrance Channels,” Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 54(1), 209–233.)

李大偉, 李建興, 胡茹萍, 與黃嘉莉 (2012), “我國大學多元入學制度之評估研究,” 台北市: 行政院研究發展考核委員會。 (Lee, Ta-Wei, Chien-Shing Lee, Ru-Ping Hu, and Jia-Li Huang (2012), “Wo Kuo Hsüeh To Yuan Ju Hsüeh Chih Tu Chih P’ing Ku Yen Chiu,” Research, Development and Evaluation Commission (RDEC) of Taipei City Government.)

李浩仲, 李文傑, 與連賢明 (2016), “多 「錢」 入學? 從政大學生組成看多元入學,” 《經濟論文》, 44(2), 207-250。 (Li, Hao-Chung, Wen-Chieh Lee, and Hsien-Ming Lien (2016), “Investigating The Equality of Two. Track College Recruitment Evidence from Administrative Data of National Chengchi University,” Academia Economic Papers, 44(2), 207.)