IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

The ‘discouraged-business-major’ hypothesis: policy implications

Listed author(s):
  • John Marangos

This paper uses a relatively large dataset of the stated academic major preferences of economics majors at a relatively large, not highly selective, public university in the USA to identify the ‘discouraged-business-majors’ (DBMs). The DBM hypothesis addresses the phenomenon where students who are screened out of the business curriculum often choose an economics major as their alternative. This paper explains how DBMs were identified as a subset of economics majors and then examines how the presence of DBMs affects the quality of students in the economics program. In addition, potential changes affecting the number of economics majors are investigated such as the economics department joining the business school, raising the minimum entry Grade Point Average (GPA), or raising calculus or introductory microeconomics course minimum grade requirements. The dataset was compiled from the transcripts of all economics majors who graduated between Spring 1999 and Spring 2005, that is 436 students over 19 terms. DBMs constituted 42% of economics majors and, on average, underperformed relative to non-DBMs academically. Of the policy changes considered, joining the business school would have the greatest impact, reducing the number of economics majors by 83%, but raising the average GPA of majors from 2.70 to 3.43. Requiring a B-- or greater in introductory microeconomics would reduce majors by 32.8% and raise the GPA from 2.70 to 2.82.

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:
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.

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

Volume (Year): 20 (2012)
Issue (Month): 4 (September)
Pages: 430-446

in new window

Handle: RePEc:taf:edecon:v:20:y:2012:i:4:p:430-446
DOI: 10.1080/09645292.2010.511820
Contact details of provider: Web page:

Order Information: Web:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

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

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:edecon:v:20:y:2012:i:4:p:430-446. 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.