Does alma mater matter? An audit study of labour market outcomes of Canadian Bachelor's Degree recipients
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many parts of the world, the rewards attached to a university degree vary significantly according to the name of the institution one attends, particularly in countries with highly stratified postsecondary systems. Because the Canadian higher education system is relatively homogenous and non-hierarchical, it has been generally accepted that Canadian graduates enter the labour market on equal footing regardless of where they matriculate. We test this assumption through an experimental audit study that compares employers' responses to fictitious matched job applications from equally qualified bachelor's degree recipients from three Ontario universities: Brock, Queen's, and Waterloo. Not all employers make a distinction between the paired applications; but when they do, Waterloo is favoured. In these cases, even though applicants had the same field of study, academic achievement and work experience, employers singled out Waterloo applicants for a response 84% more often than those from Brock. These findings indicate that institutional affiliation matters in Canada, and suggests that graduates from some institutions fare significantly better in the labour market than their equally accomplished peers from other institutions. We conclude that even in relatively non-hierarchical systems with comparatively minimal structural or resource variation, status hierarchies emerge that privilege some graduates over others.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 it