Higher Education

, 54:885 | Cite as

College application behavior: who is strategic? Does it help?

  • Hanna AyalonEmail author


The paper examines whether college application behavior assists members of privileged social groups to preserve their advantages in diversified higher education systems. The study is based on a survey conducted in Israel in 1999 on a sample of 4,061 freshmen in the research universities and the academic colleges, which are often perceived as the second tier of higher education. The findings show that strategic application behavior helps less able children of academic parents to achieve the summit of higher education: studying lucrative fields of study at the research universities. Mizrachim, the disadvantaged Jewish ethnic group, are strategic when applying for lucrative fields of study, but it does not affect their actual enrollment. Strategic application behavior helps Arabs, the most disadvantaged group in Israel, increase their odds of achieving the “worst” option, studying non-lucrative fields in colleges. Talented women successfully practice strategic behavior when applying for lucrative fields of study. The effects of strategic application behavior are, thus, mixed. It helps in preserving socio-economic and ethnic inequalities, but also helps in reducing gender inequality among talented students.


College application behavior Single and multiple applications Qualitative aspect of multiple applications Inequality in higher education Fields of study First-tier and second-tier institutions 



I thank Limor Gerbat, Moshe Lavi, and Timna Ziv for their research assistance, and the anonymous reviewers of Higher Education for their helpful comments.


  1. Al-Haj, M. (1995). Education, empowerment, and control: The case of the Arabs in Israel. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  2. Alon, S. (2001). Racial, ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in college destination, 1982 and 1992 (Working Paper No. 2001-02). Princeton, NJ: Office of Population Research.Google Scholar
  3. Ambler, J. S., & Neathery, J. (1999). Educational policy and equality: Some evidence from Europe. Social Science Quarterly, 80(3), 437–456.Google Scholar
  4. Ayalon, H. (2003). Women and men go to university: Mathematical background and gender differences in choice of field in higher education. Sex Roles, 48(5/6), 277–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ayalon, H., Grodsky, E., Gamoran, A., & Yogev, A. (2000). Stratification and diversity in higher education: A comparison between Israel and the United States. Paper presented at the meeting of the Research Committee on Social Stratification and Mobility of the International Sociological Association, Lilbourn, France.Google Scholar
  6. Ayalon, H., & Shavit, Y. (2004). Educational reforms and inequality in Israel: The MMI hypothesis revisited. Sociology of Education, 77(2), 103–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ayalon, H., & Yogev, A. (2002). Window to the academic world. Research report submitted to the Israeli Ministry of Education and Culture (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  8. Ayalon, H., & Yogev, A. (2005). Field of study and student stratification in an expanded system of higher education. European Sociological Review, 21, 227–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ayalon, H., & Yogev, A. (2006). Stratification and diversity in the expanded higher education system in Israel. Higher Education Policy, 19184–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis in behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Davies, S., & Guppy, N. (1997). Fields of study, college selectivity, and student inequality in higher education. Social Forces, 75, 1417–1438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gerber, T. P., & Schaffer, D. R. (2004). Horizontal stratification of higher education in Russia: Trends, gender differences, and labor market outcomes. Sociology of Education, 77, 32–59.Google Scholar
  13. Goyette, K. A., & Mullen, A. L. (2006). Who studies the arts and sciences? Social background and the choice and consequences of undergraduate field of study. The Journal of Higher Education, 77, 497–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guri-Rosenblit, S. (1999). Changing boundaries in Israeli higher education. Mediterranean Journal of Educational Studies, 4(2), 91–114.Google Scholar
  15. Hearn, J. C. (1991). Academic and nonacademic influences on the college destination of 1980 high school graduates. Sociology of Education, 64, 158–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hossler, D., & Gallagher, K. C. (1987). Studying student college choices: A three-phase model of the implications for policymakers. College and University, (Spring), 62, 207–221.Google Scholar
  17. Hurtado, S., Inkeles, K. K., Briggs, C., & Rhee, B.-S. (1997). Differences in college access and choice among racial/ethnic groups: Identifying continuing barriers. Research in Higher Education, 38(1), 43–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hutchings, M. (2003). Information, advice and cultural discourses of higher education. In L. Archer, M. Hutchings, & A. Ross (Eds.), Higher education and social class (pp. 97–118). London and New York: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  19. Israel Central Bureau of Statistics (ICBS). (2000). Statistical abstract for Israel 2000. Jerusalem: Central Bureau of Statistics (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  20. Karen, D. (2002). Change in access to higher education in the United States: 1980–1992. Sociology of Education, 75(2), 191–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lopez Turley, R. N. (2005). When parents want children to stay home for college. Paper presented at the meeting of the Research Committee on Social Stratification and Mobility, Oslo.Google Scholar
  22. Lucas, S. R. (2001). Effectively maintained inequality: Education transitions, track mobility, and social background effects. American Journal of Sociology, 106(6), 1642–1690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McDonough, P. M. (1994). Buying and selling higher education: The social construction of the college applicant. The Journal of Higher Education, 65(4), 427–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McDonough, P. M. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools structure opportunity. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  25. Persell, C. H., Castambis, S., & Cookson, P. W. (1992). Differential asset conversion—class and gendered pathways to selective colleges. Sociology of Education, 65, 208–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51, 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Van de Werfhorst, H. G., De Graaf, N. D., & Kraaykamp, G. (2001). Intergenerational resemblance in field of study in the Netherlands. European Sociological Review, 17, 275–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yogev, A. (1997). Autonomy and choice as school strategies for peripheral communities in Israel. In R. Shapira, & P. W. Cookso (Eds.), Autonomy and choice in context: An international perspective (pp. 172–202). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  29. Yogev, A. (2000). The stratification of Israeli universities: Implications for higher education policy. Higher Education, 40, 183–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations