MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3201574931

Work-Ready Graduates: The Role of Co-op Programs in Labour Market Success

2020· article· en· W3201574931 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueC.D. Howe Institute Commentary · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueEmployment and Welfare Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGraduation (instrument)WageDemographic economicsDifferential (mechanical device)Work (physics)Labour economicsEconomicsHigher educationPsychologyBusinessEconomic growth
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Adapting to the labour market after post-secondary education and finding a job that matches graduates’ skills, while providing a good standard of living, can be a daunting challenge for new graduates.This Commentary investigates whether work-integrated learning (specifically co-op programs) results in higher incomes or other benefits after graduation.It provides an analysis of National Graduate Survey (2013) data to determine (i) the returns to participation in co-op for different fields of study at both the college and university levels, (ii) differential outcomes based on individual characteristics, and (iii) the effects associated with non-monetary success in the labor market. Estimates suggest that co-op programs have significant benefits for participants in the form of eased transition to the labor market and higher incomes after graduation and that they may play a role in overcoming wage gaps associated with bias toward individual characteristics (race, gender, immigration status). Overall, participating in co-op generally appears to be beneficial for graduates’ incomes – three years after graduation co-op participants have incomes about $2, 000 to $4, 000 higher than non-participants. At the college level, participating in co-op does not necessarily lead to higher incomes after graduation across all fields of study.There are, however, significant benefits to participating in co-op at the college level in science and engineering programs. Aggregate results, however, do not capture underlying and important differences in the effects associated with participating in co-op programs that depend on individuals’ characteristics and chosen fields of study. The estimated effect of participating in co-op programs differs for women, visible minorities and immigrants, relative to Canadian men. For visible minority and immigrant university graduates, participation in co-op programs is associated with similar incomes to white-male co-op participants. Female co-op program participants that graduated from university received wages similar to male peers that did not participate. Immigrants, women and visible minority individuals that participated in co-op were more likely to be employed full time than non-participants with similar characteristics.Women, unfortunately, tend to receive lower benefits than men from participating in co-op programs in terms of income, getting a first job related to their field of study, or securing a permanent position. Together, these results highlight that co-op programs and work-integrated learning more generally might have a role in reducing wage and employment gaps traditionally associated with bias toward individual characteristics. Government policymakers and educational institutions should continue their support for expanding the programs so they are accessible to more students. At present, co-op programs in arts, education and social science do not appear to be as beneficial as the programs in STEM subjects. While co-ops are generally beneficial, the differences between fields of study suggests a need for caution in assuming that expanding co-op programs to more individuals or new areas would have the same benefits for new graduates as do current co-op programs. This highlights a need to carefully monitor the results of participating in co-op for students both during school and after graduation to continuously improve and adapt the programs to maximize benefits for individual fields of study.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,707
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,682

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,102
Tête enseignante GPT0,376
Écart entre enseignants0,274 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle