Financial Literacy and Behavioral Biases among Traditional Age College Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Financial literacy and planning are crucial for everyone. This is especially true for college students who as the decisions they make in this stage of their lives can haunt them throughout their income earning years and beyond. In this paper, we examine several financial literacy issues facing college students. We identify college students’ perceptions about their own financial situation, assess student financial literacy knowledge, as well as evaluate their awareness about the status of their savings and retirement positions. We find that basic financial literacy is not the only factor in making sound financial decisions. Our results show the majority of the college students surveyed are financially literate and have the ability to make informed decisions about their personal finances in the short-run. While our respondents appear confident in making short-run financial decisions, their behavior tends to suggest that their confidence is somewhat misguided. In addition, a large number of the students surveyed feel they do not have the requisite knowledge to make wise retirement planning choices. Furthermore, several respondents report a distrust of retirement plans offer by private companies, which may lead to suboptimal retirement savings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".