Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

A comparison of A-level performance in economics and business studies: How much more difficult is economics?

Contents:

Author Info

  • Barry Reilly
  • Ray Bachan

Abstract

This paper uses A-Level Information System data to compare academic performance in two subjects often viewed as relatively close substitutes for one another at A-level. The important role of GCSE achievement is confirmed for both subjects. There is evidence of strong gender effects and variation in outcomes across Examination Boards. A counterfactual exercise suggests that if the sample of Business Studies candidates had studied Economics nearly 40% of those who obtained a grade C or better in the former subject would not have done so in the latter. The opposite exercise suggests that 12% more Economics candidates would have achieved a grade C or better if they had taken Business Studies. In order to render a Business Studies A-level grade comparable with an Economics one in terms of relative difficulty, we estimate that a downward adjustment of 1.5 UCAS points should be applied to the former subject. This adjustment is lower than that suggested by correction factors based on conventional subject pair analysis for these two subjects

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/0964529042000325225
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal Education Economics.

Volume (Year): 13 (2005)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
Pages: 85-108

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:taf:edecon:v:13:y:2005:i:1:p:85-108

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/CEDE20

Order Information:
Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/CEDE20

Related research

Keywords: Business Studies; Economics; subject difficulty; ordered probit;

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Nick Adnett & Spiros Bougheas & Peter Davies, . "Market-Based Reforms of Public Schooling: Some Unpleasant Dynamics," Working Papers 994, Staffordshire University, Business School.
  2. Machin, Stephen & Oswald, Andrew, 2000. "UK Economics and the Future Supply of Academic Economists," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 110(464), pages F334-49, June.
  3. Machin, Stephen J & Stewart, Mark B, 1990. "Unions and the Financial Performance of British Private Sector Establishments," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 5(4), pages 327-50, Oct.-Dec..
  4. Chesher, Andrew & Irish, Margaret, 1987. "Residual analysis in the grouped and censored normal linear model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1-2), pages 33-61.
  5. Booth, Alison L & Burton, Jonathan & Mumford, Karen, 2000. "The Position of Women in UK Academic Economics," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 110(464), pages F312-33, June.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Ray Bachan & Michael Barrow, 2006. "Modelling Curriculum Choice at A-level: Why is Business Studies More Popular than Economics?," International Review of Economic Education, Economics Network, University of Bristol, vol. 5(2), pages 58-80.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:edecon:v:13:y:2005:i:1:p:85-108. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.