, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp 447–469 | Cite as

Causal Effects of Single-Sex Schools on College Entrance Exams and College Attendance: Random Assignment in Seoul High Schools

  • Hyunjoon ParkEmail author
  • Jere R. Behrman
  • Jaesung Choi


Despite the voluminous literature on the potentials of single-sex schools, there is no consensus on the effects of single-sex schools because of student selection of school types. We exploit a unique feature of schooling in Seoul—the random assignment of students into single-sex versus coeducational high schools—to assess causal effects of single-sex schools on college entrance exam scores and college attendance. Our validation of the random assignment shows comparable socioeconomic backgrounds and prior academic achievement of students attending single-sex schools and coeducational schools, which increases the credibility of our causal estimates of single-sex school effects. The three-level hierarchical model shows that attending all-boys schools or all-girls schools, rather than coeducational schools, is significantly associated with higher average scores on Korean and English test scores. Applying the school district fixed-effects models, we find that single-sex schools produce a higher percentage of graduates who attended four-year colleges and a lower percentage of graduates who attended two-year junior colleges than do coeducational schools. The positive effects of single-sex schools remain substantial, even after we take into account various school-level variables, such as teacher quality, the student-teacher ratio, the proportion of students receiving lunch support, and whether the schools are public or private.


Single-sex schools Random assignment Causal inferences College entrance College entrance exam scores 



We acknowledge support from the National Academy of Education/Spencer Postdoctoral Fellowship (for Hyunjoon Park), the Spencer Foundation (#20110030), and from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (R03HD066018). The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors.


  1. Akiba, M., LeTendre, G. K., & Scribner, J. P. (2007). Teacher quality, opportunity gap, and national achievement in 46 countries. Educational Researcher, 36, 369–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Association of University Women (AAUW). (1992). How schools shortchange girls. Washington, DC: AAUW.Google Scholar
  3. American Association of University Women Educational Foundation (AAUWEF). (1998). Separated by sex. Washington, DC: AAUWEF.Google Scholar
  4. Arum, R., & LaFree, G. (2008). Educational attainment, teacher-student ratios, and the risk of adult incarceration among U.S. birth cohorts since 1910. Sociology of Education, 81, 397–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Behrman, J. R., & Birdsall, N. (1983). The quality of schooling: Quantity alone is misleading. American Economic Review, 73, 928–946.Google Scholar
  6. Bettinger, E. P., & Long, B. T. (2005). Do faculty serve as role models? The impact of instructor gender on female students. American Economic Review, 95, 152–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bullock, J. G., Green, D. P., & Ha, S. E. (2010). Yes, but what’s the mechanism? (Don’t expect an easy answer). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 550–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Card, D., & Krueger, A. B. (1996). School resources and student outcomes: An overview of the literature and new evidence from North and South Carolina. Journal of Economic Respective, 10, 31–50.Google Scholar
  9. Cho, U. (2004). Gender inequality and patriarchal order reexamined. Korea Journal, 44, 22–41.Google Scholar
  10. Chudowsky, N., & Chudowsky, V. (2010). State test score trends through 2007–08, part 5: Are there differences in achievement between boys and girls? Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.Google Scholar
  11. Coleman, J. (1961). The adolescent society. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  12. Datnow, A., & Hubbard, L. (Eds.). (2002). Gender in policy and practice: Perspectives on single-sex and coeducational schooling. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Dee, T. S. (2006). How a teacher’s gender affects boys and girls. Education Next, 6(4), 69–75.Google Scholar
  14. Dee, T. S. (2007). Teachers and the gender gaps in student achievement. Journal of Human Resources, 42, 528–554.Google Scholar
  15. DiPrete, T. A., & Buchmann, C. (2006). Gender-specific trends in the value of education and the emerging gender gap in college completion. Demography, 43, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Freeman, C. E. (2004). Trends in educational equity of girls & women: 2004 (NCES 2005–016). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  17. Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  18. Green, D. P., Ha, S. E., & Bullock, J. G. (2010). Enough already about “black box” experiments: Studying mediation is more difficult than most scholars suppose. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 628, 200–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hall, R. M., & Sandler, B. R. (1982). The classroom climate: A chilly one for women? Washington, DC: Project on the Status and Education of Women, Association of American Colleges.Google Scholar
  20. Jackson, C. K. (2012). Single-sex schools, student achievement, and course selection: Evidence from rule-based student assignments in Trinidad and Tobago. Journal of Public Economics, 96, 173–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim, K. (2003). Modification of the equalization policy and suggested policy measures. Korea Journal, 43, 200–214.Google Scholar
  22. Kim, Y. (2011, May 4). One lower pointer can make your rank lower by 3000–4000: One point becomes even more important in an easier CSAT. Busan Daily, p. 23. (in Korean)Google Scholar
  23. Kim, Y., Kim, S., Kang, S., Kim, H., Shin, J., & Park, S. (2006). Korean Educational Longitudinal Study 2005 (II). Seoul: Korean Educational Development Institute. in Korean.Google Scholar
  24. Kleinfeld, J. (2006). Five powerful strategies for connecting boys to schools (Paper for White House Conference on Helping America’s Youth). Retrieved from
  25. Lee, D., Kim, Y., Choi, Y., Kim, Y., & Han, Y. (1996). Educational policy in Korea (Background report for OECD review of Korean educational policy, CR 96-40). Seoul: Korean Educational Development Institute. (in Korean)Google Scholar
  26. Lee, V. E., & Bryk, A. S. (1986). Effects of single-sex secondary schools on student achievement and attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 381–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee, V. E., & Marks, H. M. (1990). Sustained effects of the single-sex secondary school experience on attitudes, behaviors, and values in college. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 578–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee, V. E., & Marks, H. M. (1992). Who goes where? Choice of single-sex and coeducational independent secondary schools. Sociology of Education, 65, 225–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee, V. E., Marks, H. H., & Byrd, T. (1994). Sexism in single-sex and coeducational independent secondary school classrooms. Sociology of Education, 67, 92–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. LePore, P., & Warren, J. R. (1997). A comparison of single-sex and coeducational Catholic secondary schooling: Evidence from the national educational longitudinal study of 1988. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 485–511.Google Scholar
  31. Mael, F. A., Alonso, A., Gibson, D., Rogers, K., & Smith, M. (2005). Single-sex versus coeducational schooling: A systematic review. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Department, Policy and Program Studies Service.Google Scholar
  32. Mael, F. A., Smith, M., Alonso, A., Rogers, K., & Gibson, D. (2004). Theoretical arguments for and against single-sex schools: A critical analysis of the explanations. Washington, DC: American Research Institute.Google Scholar
  33. Marsh, H. W. (1989). Effects of attending single-sex and coeducational high schools on achievement, attitudes, behaviors, and sex differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 70–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Medina, J. (2009, March 11). Boys and girls together, taught separately in public school. New York Times, p. A24 (New York edition).Google Scholar
  35. National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2007). 2005–06 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). Washington, DC: NCES.Google Scholar
  36. Nixon, L., & Robinson, M. D. (1999). The educational attainment of young women: Role model effects of female high school faculty. Demography, 36, 185–194.Google Scholar
  37. Oakes, J. (1990). Opportunities, achievement, and choice: Women and minority students in science and mathematics. Review of Research in Education, 16, 153–222.Google Scholar
  38. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2008). OECD employment outlook 2008. Paris, France: OECD.Google Scholar
  39. Park, H. (2010). Japanese and Korean high schools and students in comparative perspective. In J. Dronkers (Ed.), Quality and inequality of education: A cross-national attempt to unravel it (pp. 255–273). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pollack, W. (1998). Real boys: Rescuing our sons from the myths of boyhood. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  41. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Application and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  42. Riordan, C. (1985). Public and catholic schooling: The effects of gender context policy. American Journal of Education, 5, 518–540.Google Scholar
  43. Riordan, C. (1990). Girls and boys in school: Together or separate? New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  44. Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How our schools cheat girls. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  45. Salomone, R. C. (2003). Same, different, equal: Rethinking single-sex schooling. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Seo, J., Jung, Y., Kwak, B., & Jo, D. (2003). Policy direction and tasks for the human resource development in education. Seoul: KRIVET. in Korean.Google Scholar
  47. Steel, C. M. (1997). A treat in the air. The American Psychologist, 52, 613–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Streitmatter, J. (2002). Perceptions of a single-sex class experience: Females and males see it differently. In A. Datnow & L. Hubbard (Eds.), Gender in policy and practice: Perspectives on single-sex and coeducational schooling (pp. 212–226). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Sullivan, A., Joshi, H., & Leonard, D. (2010). Single-sex schooling and academic attainment of at school and though the life course. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 6–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Thompson, J. S. (2003). The effect of single-sex secondary schooling on women’s choice of college major. Sociological Perspectives, 46, 257–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2007). Human development report 2007/2008. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2007). Single-sex schools for girls and gender equality in education. Bangkok, Thailand: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  53. United Nations General Assembly. (2000). UN Millennium development declaration. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  54. Valentine, E. (1998). Gender differences in learning and achievement in mathematics, science and technology strategies for equity: A literature review. ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 446915.Google Scholar
  55. Weil, E. (2008, March 2). Teaching boys and girls separately. New York Times. Retrieved from
  56. World Bank (team leaders E. M. King and A. Mason). (2000). Engendering development: Gender equality in rights, resources, and voice. New York: Oxford University Press for the World Bank.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Population Association of America 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Economics and SociologyUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations