4.6 Article

Educational Mismatch of Graduates: a Multidimensional and Fuzzy Indicator

Journal

SOCIAL INDICATORS RESEARCH
Volume 103, Issue 3, Pages 465-480

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11205-010-9712-6

Keywords

Educational mismatch; Multidimensional indicators; Fuzzy sets; Factor analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this paper we attempt to measure the educational mismatch, seen as a problem of overeducation, using a multidimensional and fuzzy methodology. Educational mismatch can be difficult to measure because many factors can converge to its definition and the traditional unidimensional indicators presented in literature can offer a restricted view of the problem. We discovered two dimensions that properly define overeducation. The first includes information regarding job satisfaction, the use of expertise and the coherence between study and work, but also the measure on which the traditional indicator is based and the second concern earning aspects. We then calculate a degree of membership to the set of overeducated workers using the defined dimensions. We believe that in this manner we can partially overcome the rigidity of the traditional measures. Our findings suggested that generally women have a degree of mismatch higher than men and the graduates in Pharmacy, Medicine and Engineering are the least overeducated in terms of the first dimension, even if in terms of the earnings dimension they have similar mismatches to the other fields of education. Self-employment and collaboration contracts reduce overeducation when the first dimension is considered; on the other hand, when the second dimension is taken into account graduates with collaboration contracts are the most mismatched out of those having a job. Additionally, university reform introduced in the academic year 2001-2002 in the Italian higher education system is shown as not contributing to a reduction of the overeducation phenomenon.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available