IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fda/fdaeee/eee2020-07.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Gender Gap and Multiple Choice Exams in Public Selection Processes

Author

Listed:
  • J.I. Conde-Ruiz
  • J.J. Ganuza
  • M. García

Abstract

En el presente trabajo se investiga la posible existencia y la importancia práctica de un sesgo de género ligado a la diferente aversión al riesgo de hombres y mujeres en las pruebas de acceso al programa MIR (Medico Interno Residente) que culmina el proceso de formación de los médicos españoles

Suggested Citation

  • J.I. Conde-Ruiz & J.J. Ganuza & M. García, 2020. "Gender Gap and Multiple Choice Exams in Public Selection Processes," Studies on the Spanish Economy eee2020-07, FEDEA.
  • Handle: RePEc:fda:fdaeee:eee2020-07
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://documentos.fedea.net/pubs/eee/eee2020-07.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. P. Beneito & J. E. Boscá & J. Ferri & M. García, 2018. "Women across Subfields in Economics: Relative Performance and Beliefs," Working Papers 2018-06, FEDEA.
    2. Nagore Iriberri & Pedro Rey-Biel, 2019. "Competitive Pressure Widens the Gender Gap in Performance: Evidence from a Two-stage Competition in Mathematics," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 129(620), pages 1863-1893.
    3. María Paz Espinosa & Javier Gardeazabal, 2013. "Do Students Behave Rationally in Multiple Choice Tests? Evidence from a Field Experiment," Journal of Economics and Management, College of Business, Feng Chia University, Taiwan, vol. 9(2), pages 107-135, July.
    4. Evren Ors & Frédéric Palomino & Eloïc Peyrache, 2013. "Performance Gender Gap: Does Competition Matter?," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(3), pages 443-499.
    5. Pekkarinen, Tuomas, 2015. "Gender differences in behaviour under competitive pressure: Evidence on omission patterns in university entrance examinations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 94-110.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fda:fdaeee:eee2020-07. 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: (Carmen Arias). General contact details of provider: https://www.fedea.net .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.