<<
>>

Chapter 4 Data

The data were obtained from surveys conducted annually since 2005, by the STELLA (Statistiche in tema di laureati e lavoro) initiative of the CILEA consortium. Based on the CATI method, only two surveys, conducted in 2006 and 2011, are taken into account.

The 2006 and 2011 surveys referred, respectively, to the year before the economic crisis, and the first year in which certain changes on the labour market caused by the economic crisis, can be observed and measured.[III] The analysis was focused on the universities that are members of the CILEA consortium (Bergamo, Brescia, Milan, Milan-Bicocca, Palermo, Pavia, and Pisa). They do not represent the entire Italian university system but, on the other hand, they are not a random sample of Italian Universities. Due to their territorial distribution (in the north, centre and south of Italy) and size (small, medium and big universities), they are considered a useful subset of data for the objective of the current study.

The graduates were surveyed one year after their graduation on aspects regarding their education, career paths and current economic situation. We focused our attention on individuals with first-level degree because some analysed universities have few second-level graduates. In this case, the outranking method used can produce biased results.

We divided the first-level graduates into two groups of subjects: Economics and Statistics (ES) and Political and Social Studies (PSS), which are distinguished by different human capital characteristics and different results in employment rates, and in overeducation and mismatching rates [8]. The subjects were chosen according to the evidence in the literature (see [27, 3, 16] and previous analyses of available data [1, 90, 15, 6]).

The criteria in the model were chosen by considering two subsets of covariates, namely university graduate characteristics and job characteristics.

Overeducation and mismatching are considered “key criteria” of the job characteristics. The covari­ates are chosen taking into account the evidence available in Italian job placement literature (see [1, 90, 91, 35, 5, 93, 15]).

The graduate characteristics related to the University may reflect the reputation of each university. They include g1, the percentage of graduates who have not received classical or scientific high-school education; g2, the mean graduation grade (mini­mum 60 maximum 110); g3, the effective length of the study period in years (mean length/legal time); and g4, parental background (the median value of a variable obtained from analysing both the job of the parents and their education level; for further analyses, see the methodological note in [15, 14]). Many evidence in litera­ture [90, 15] show as the parental background influence student in the choice about disciplines and above all in the choice of the better university.

The job characteristics refer to the job placement of graduates. These charac­teristics depend on each University and its capability in the third mission activity, but also on the labour market placement of graduates and their on-the-job self­assessment. Efforts were made to introduce the human capital factor as a result of a mix of education, soft skills and ability in the job. They include g5, the percent­age of full-time employment; g6, average monthly net income; g7, the percentage of employed reporting that they have decisional autonomy; g8, the percentage of employed reporting that they have job responsibility over other employees; g9, the percentage of overeducated; and g10, the percentage of mismatched. Mismatching is measured as a proportion of graduates working in jobs for which acquired skills are not required and overeducation is measured as a proportion of graduates working in jobs for which a university degree was not a formal requirement (definitions adopted in most empirical papers, see par.

2). Overeducation is defined as employed graduates working in jobs for which a university degree was not a formal requirement.

Although some scholars propose a multi-dimensional approach to defining mis­matching and overeducation [24,4], for our purposes, considering the available data, both overeducation and mismatching are considered univariate concepts. They are measured by a dichotomous variable that divides the workers into two groups, namely all those who are mismatched and/or overeducated, and all the others.

The size of the analysed subpopulation of graduates is 6,505 in 2006 and 7,837 in 2011 (Table 4.1).

STELLA universities are codified using ai indices to ensure privacy. Using the appropriate language of the Electre III models, the results are summarized in perfor­mance matrices. Tables 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 present the performance matrices relating to the entire data set and those relating to Economics and Statistics graduates, and Political and Social Studies graduates, respectively.

The data show a medium or medium-high social background (g4) (Table 4.2). For a6 and a7 universities only, the social background shows an improvement during the two years (Table 4.2). Social background improved for Economics and Statistics graduates at α6 and α7 universities; and for Political and Social Studies graduates at a6 (Tables 4.3 and 4.4).

Table 4.1 Graduates in 2006-2011 by subject, university, prior to and during the economic crisis

Economics and

Statistics

Political and Social Studies Others Total
2006 2011 2006 2011 2006 2011 2006 2011
α1 257 419 241 241 88 175 586 835
a7 283 422 - - - - 283 422
a3 742 865 528 500 585 591 1855 1955
a4 71 92 959 924 416 495 1446 1511
a5 169 380 437 543 267 340 873 1260
a6 346 457 206 415 217 215 769 1087
a7 238 318 262 255 193 190 693 763
Total 2106 2953 2633 2878 1766 2006 6505 7837

The employment rate changes during transition from the pre-crisis to the during crisis period with Political and Social Studies graduates (g5 indicator) being affected more compared to Economics and Statistics graduates (Tables 4.3 and 4.4).

More than 50% of graduates with a job declare having decisional autonomy in the job (g7). Between the pre-crisis period and the crisis period, this indicator increases at all the universities except for a1 and a5.

Less than 1 out of 4 employed graduates said that they were responsible for other employees (g8). This rate is higher for α5 graduates, following an upward trend from 2006 to 2011.

The average monthly net income of employed graduates (g6) changed from 2006 to 2011. In the 2011 survey, only a2 and a4 university graduates earned an aver­age monthly net income exceeding 1000 euro (Table 4.2). The income earned by Economics and Statistics graduates is better than for others (Tables 4.3 and 4.4).

Overeducation (g9) exceeds 50% for all disciplinary groups, universities and both surveys (2006 and 2011). In the 2011 survey, this value increased by 20% (Table 4.2). These results confirm the evidence available in the literature [44, 6, 60, 16, 85].

As regards the Economics and Statistics graduates, the highest increase is noted for universities a1 and a5 (Table 4.3). Overeducation is stable for the Political and Social Studies graduates of university α7 (Table 4.4).

The graduates of university a2 are associated with a lower mismatching value (g10) than that of other university graduates (Table 4.2). Bigger, larger increase of the g10 indicator was observed for university a6 (+25.4%, Table 4.2).

Between the 2006 and 2011 surveys, a1 graduates recorded a relevant decrease in g10. An increase in g10 was noted for α2, a4 and specially for α6 graduates (Table4.2). The g10 indicator does not reach 50% for Economics and Statistics graduates, while for Political and Social Studies graduates, this threshold is exceeded in both the surveys (Tables 4.3 and 4.4).

Table 4.2 Performance matrix for graduates, prior to and during the crisis period

University Job
gl g2 g3 g4 g5

(a) 2006 Graduates

a∖ 63.11 98.5 1.33 3 71.49
a2 68.58 97.3 1.39 3 74.56
àç 53.74 98.6 1.42 3 68.39
44.97 100.0 1.34 4 66.62
as 58.35 104.8 1.56 3 52.46
a6 50.38 102.8 1.52 3 63.83
aj 47.10 99.5 1.23 3 59.70

(b) 2011 Graduates

àë 67.28 96.7 1.43 3 63.36
a2 59.62 95.4 1.45 3 73.25
àç 51.93 97.3 1.43 3 64.40
49.85 97.8 1.51 4 70.76
as 56.76 99.1 1.97 3 50.03
a6 53.81 101.7 1.62 4 62.47
a7 48.25 97.4 1.32 4 64.46

g6

957

g7

64.15

gs

20.72

g9over

57.52

8 IOmis

58.49

999 44.13 17.97 65.47 40.41
907 58.83 22.22 59.69 51.54
937 50.39 23.27 63.98 58.17
757 60.54 26.48 63.20 57.01
852 54.06 20.71 58.51 47.57
931 55.03 23.56 61.86 58.25

972 57.27 17.31 73.34 50.43
1053 59.87 26.97 59.69 43.14
959 63.72 17.79 60.32 50.18
1035 61.73 24.16 62.96 61.47
853 57.64 22.53 72.80 57.35
949 65.60 21.01 72.13 63.80
966 59.25 20.27 60.24 58.98

Data

Table 4.3 Performance matrix for Economics and Statistics graduates, prior to and during the crisis period

bgcolor=white>67.74
University Job
gl g2 g3 g4 g5 ge g7 gs g9over g IOmis
(a) 2006 Graduates
a 59.85 93.3 1.35 3 76.41 1027 53.92 14.21 56.89 35.27
68.58 97.3 1.39 3 74.56 999 44.13 17.97 65.47 40.41
àç 58.25 98.5 1.51 3 82.02 1017 56.76 24.03 59.52 32.35
41.07 97.4 1.27 4 83.33 1028 33.33 16.67 55.56 33.07
as 65.47 103.2 1.65 3 60.53 767 71.19 25.05 56.95 7.15
a6 58.20 100.2 1.53 3 70.15 923 53.26 21.76 64.37 43.51
aj 52.18 96.5 1.27 3 980 53.05 25.08 56.49 28.79
(b) 2011 Graduates
àë 60.93 93.6 1.43 3 70.53 1113 59.73 18.66 73.78 31.54
59.62 95.4 1.45 3 73.25 1053 59.87 26.97 59.69 43.14
àç 50.73 97.4 1.47 3 71.13 997 57.25 12.25 51.13 37.14
46.92 94.1 1.26 4 56.42 819 52.29 19.73 63.31 16.05
as 56.25 93.7 2.07 3 53.52 946 55.64 23.27 69.88 17.58
a6 59.46 99.6 1.46 4 69.80 962 70.15 13.95 72.15 46.64
a7 46.25 93.7 1.29 4 78.46 1016 50.50 14.91 56.69 36.67

Table 4.4 Performance matrix for Political and Social Studies graduates, prior to and during the crisis period

University Job

gl g2 g3 g4 g5 ge g7 gs g9over 810mis
(a) 2006 Graduates
«1 62.72 101.9 1.40 3 72.21 933 71.32 27.55 60.06 75.56
«3 59.50 97.9 1.38 4 63.39 859 62.05 18.87 62.74 77.50
45.85 100.3 1.30 4 58.79 871 52.24 24.81 68.21 79.00
as 59.42 105.8 1.51 3 58.91 819 60.80 34.06 66.08 73.85
a6 58.02 104.9 1.54 3 54.26 723 52.70 21.71 57.10 70.52
at 48.75 102.1 1.25 3 62.78 948 49.73 23.76 65.17 73.40
(b) 2011 Graduates
«1 81.46 99.1 1.45 3 65.84 825 54.70 17.75 74.78 78.83
«3 70.05 96.7 1.37 3 63.15 944 65.13 17.13 64.66 75.55
54.40 97.5 1.43 4 63.67 968 57.84 25.02 69.09 79.42
as 55.16 101.3 1.90 3 50.95 818 59.14 27.18 72.48 86.43
a6 59.91 102.6 1.73 4 53.03 879 57.12 26.37 77.21 88.33
at 62.04 101.1 1.43 3 65.29 1034 55.38 24.43 65.04 75.35

Data

Data

<< | >>
Source: Allegro R., Giambalvo O.. University Performance Before and During Economic Crises: An Analysis of Graduate Characteristics. Springer,2020. — 78 p.. 2020
More economic literature on Economics.Studio

More on the topic Chapter 4 Data:

  1. Alsharari Nizar Mohammad (ed.). Banking and Accounting Issues. ITexLi,2022. — 175 p., 2022
  2. PREFACE
  3. Abel A.B., Bernanke B., Croushore D.. Macroeconomics. 10th Edition, Global Edition. — Pearson,2021. — 690 pp., 2021
  4. References
  5. REVIEW OF FORENSIC ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS
  6. FIVE COMPONENTS OF LEGAL COMPETENCIES
  7. REFERENCES
  8. Bovine Tuberculosis in Uganda
  9. Diagnosis of Bovine Tuberculosis in Zambia
  10. Oetzel John, Ting-Toomey Stella. The SAGE Handbook of Conflict Communication: Integrating Theory, Research and Practice. SAGE Publications,2013. — 912 p., 2013