IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ucl/cepeow/25-15.html

Understanding the decision (not) to become a teacher: evidence from survey experiments with undergraduates in the UK and US

Author

Listed:
  • Sam Sims

    (UCL Centre for Education Poicy & Equalising Opportunities)

  • Clare Routledge

    (UCL Centre for Education Poicy & Equalising Opportunities)

Abstract

Teacher shortages are widespread, yet the reasons people choose (not) to enter the profession remain poorly understood. We conducted two survey experiments in which thousands of undergraduates chose between pairs of hypothetical jobs. This allowed us to evaluate the effects of differences in pay, working patterns and other job attributes on job choices, as well as explore how personality type and values underpin job preferences. Contrary to existing research, which is largely based on self-reports, we found that extrinsic rewards have the most influence on job choices, even among those who are considering teaching. Policymakers looking to address shortages should improve the extrinsic rewards of teaching and communicate these, alongside the many altruistic and meaningful aspects of teaching, to potential new recruits.

Suggested Citation

  • Sam Sims & Clare Routledge, 2025. "Understanding the decision (not) to become a teacher: evidence from survey experiments with undergraduates in the UK and US," CEPEO Working Paper Series 25-15, UCL Centre for Education Policy and Equalising Opportunities, revised Nov 2025.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucl:cepeow:25-15
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repec-cepeo.ucl.ac.uk/cepeow/cepeowp25-15.pdf
    File Function: Initial version, 2025
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chandler, Dana & Kapelner, Adam, 2013. "Breaking monotony with meaning: Motivation in crowdsourcing markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 123-133.
    2. Leeper, Thomas J. & Hobolt, Sara B. & Tilley, James, 2020. "Measuring Subgroup Preferences in Conjoint Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 207-221, April.
    3. Bansak, Kirk & Hainmueller, Jens & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2021. "Beyond the breaking point? Survey satisficing in conjoint experiments," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 53-71, January.
    4. Björn Bartling & Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 2013. "Discretion, Productivity, and Work Satisfaction," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 169(1), pages 4-22, March.
    5. Matthias Benz & Bruno S. Frey, 2008. "Being Independent is a Great Thing: Subjective Evaluations of Self‐Employment and Hierarchy," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 75(298), pages 362-383, May.
    6. Lentini, Valeria & Gimenez, Gregorio & Valbuena, Javier, 2024. "Teachers' preferences for incentives to work in disadvantaged districts: A discrete choice experiment in Costa Rica," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 831-845.
    7. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(8), pages 827-840, August.
    8. Nicole Maestas & Kathleen J. Mullen & David Powell & Till von Wachter & Jeffrey B. Wenger, 2023. "The Value of Working Conditions in the United States and the Implications for the Structure of Wages," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 113(7), pages 2007-2047, July.
    9. Peter Valet & Carsten Sauer & Jochem Tolsma, 2021. "Preferences for work arrangements: A discrete choice experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(7), pages 1-20, July.
    10. A. D. Roy, 1951. "Some Thoughts On The Distribution Of Earnings," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 135-146.
    11. Bansak, Kirk & Hainmueller, Jens & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2018. "The Number of Choice Tasks and Survey Satisficing in Conjoint Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(1), pages 112-119, January.
    12. Matthew Wiswall & Basit Zafar, 2018. "Preference for the Workplace, Investment in Human Capital, and Gender," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 133(1), pages 457-507.
    13. Johnston, Andrew C., 2021. "Preferences, Selection, and the Structure of Teacher Pay," IZA Discussion Papers 14831, IZA Network @ LISER.
    14. Hainmueller, Jens & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2014. "Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 1-30, January.
    15. Matthew A. Kraft & Melissa Arnold Lyon, 2024. "The Rise and Fall of the Teaching Profession: Prestige, Interest, Preparation, and Satisfaction over the Last Half Century," NBER Working Papers 32386, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. R. Paul Battaglio & Nicola Belle & Paola Cantarelli, 2022. "Self-determination theory goes public: experimental evidence on the causal relationship between psychological needs and job satisfaction," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(9), pages 1411-1428, September.
    17. Jeffrey Carpenter & Erick Gong, 2016. "Motivating Agents: How Much Does the Mission Matter?," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(1), pages 211-236.
    18. Leeper, Thomas J. & Hobolt, Sara & Tilley, James, 2020. "Measuring subgroup preferences in conjoint experiments," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100944, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Benhenda, Asma, 2022. "Absence, substitutability and productivity: Evidence from teachers," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    20. Horiuchi, Yusaku & Markovich, Zachary & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2022. "Does Conjoint Analysis Mitigate Social Desirability Bias?," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 535-549, October.
    21. Jens Hainmueller & Daniel J. Hopkins, 2015. "The Hidden American Immigration Consensus: A Conjoint Analysis of Attitudes toward Immigrants," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(3), pages 529-548, July.
    22. Benjamin D Douglas & Patrick J Ewell & Markus Brauer, 2023. "Data quality in online human-subjects research: Comparisons between MTurk, Prolific, CloudResearch, Qualtrics, and SONA," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(3), pages 1-17, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tukiainen, Janne & Blesse, Sebastian & Bohne, Albrecht & Giuffrida, Leonardo M. & Jääskeläinen, Jan & Luukinen, Ari & Sieppi, Antti, 2024. "What are the priorities of bureaucrats? Evidence from conjoint experiments with procurement officials," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    2. Liza G. Steele & Laird Gallagher, 2025. "Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Refugees During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the U.S," Journal of International Migration and Integration, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 2593-2627, December.
    3. Henrik S Christensen & Marco S La Rosa & Kimmo Grönlund, 2020. "How candidate characteristics affect favorability in European Parliament elections: Evidence from a conjoint experiment in Finland," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(3), pages 519-540, September.
    4. Joop Adema & Lasha Chargaziia & Yvonne Giesing & Sarah Necker & Panu Poutvaara, 2025. "What Drives Refugees’ Return After Conflict?," RFBerlin Discussion Paper Series 2565, ROCKWOOL Foundation Berlin (RFBerlin).
    5. Pham, Truong & Khan, Ghulam Dastgir & Goto, Daisaku, 2026. "Would You Invest More? What Enterprises Reveal in a Randomized Experiment," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 134-147.
    6. Justesen, Mogens K. & Koob, Sigrid & Smid, Sina, 2025. "Clientelism and programmatic redistribution: Evidence from a conjoint survey experiment in Brazil," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    7. Henrik Serup Christensen & Lauri Rapeli, 2021. "Immediate rewards or delayed gratification? A conjoint survey experiment of the public’s policy preferences," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 63-94, March.
    8. Fumiya Uchikoshi & Hirofumi Miwa & Yoshikuni Ono, 2025. "Gendered Expectations for College Applications: Experimental Evidence from a Gender Inegalitarian Education Context," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 66(5), pages 1-27, August.
    9. Non, Arjan & Rohde, Ingrid & de Grip, Andries & Dohmen, Thomas, 2022. "Mission of the company, prosocial attitudes and job preferences: A discrete choice experiment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    10. Sayaka Usui & Benjamin K. Blevins, 2025. "Investing in the Future of Djibouti: A Choice-based Conjoint Analysis for Youth Employment Preferences," SAGE Open, , vol. 15(1), pages 21582440251, March.
    11. Avidit Acharya & Jens Hainmueller & Yiqing Xu, 2026. "Learning Preferences from Conjoint Data: A Hybrid Structural Deep Learning Approach," Papers 2604.10845, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2026.
    12. Kim, Sung Eun & Park, Jong Hee & Rhee, Inbok & Yang, Joonseok, 2025. "What do aid recipients want? Public attitudes toward foreign aid in developing countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    13. Anne-Marie Jeannet & Tobias Heidland & Martin Ruhs, 2021. "What asylum and refugee policies do Europeans want? Evidence from a cross-national conjoint experiment," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(3), pages 353-376, September.
    14. Hsu Yumin Wang & Stefano Jud & Will Giles, 2025. "Does shaming make non-compliance with international court rulings costlier? Evidence from China," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 62(7), pages 2445-2453, December.
    15. Kelly Morrison, 2025. "Why voters (sometimes) punish repression," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 62(7), pages 2203-2220, December.
    16. Abby Córdova & Lucía Tiscornia, 2025. "Law enforcement at the margin of the law: Information provision and support for militarization in Mexico," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 62(5), pages 1428-1446, September.
    17. Burak Sonmez & Kirils Makarovs & Nick Allum, 2023. "Public perception of scientists: Experimental evidence on the role of sociodemographic, partisan, and professional characteristics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(7), pages 1-20, July.
    18. Krawczyk, Michal & Blasco, Andrea & Gajderowicz, Tomasz & Giergiczny, Marek, 2024. "Support for temporary protection of displaced populations in the EU: A conjoint experiment," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    19. Janne Tukiainen & Ilona Lahdelma & Mika Maliranta & Risto Rönkkö & Juho Saari, 2024. "The TikTok factor: Young voters and the support for the populist right," Working Papers 351, Työn ja talouden tutkimus LABORE, The Labour Institute for Economic Research LABORE.
    20. Jaroslaw Kantorowicz & Elena Kantorowicz-Reznichenko & Gerdien de Vries, 2025. "Public perception of terrorism attacks: A conjoint experiment," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 62(2), pages 310-327, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • I20 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ucl:cepeow:25-15. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Jake Anders (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/epucluk.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.