Research

Abstract

This paper analyze a gender-based affirmative action policy implemented in 2020 for STEM programs at Uganda's largest public university. Pushing more women in STEM majors by relaxing the admission criterion may lead to a potential mismatch. Improved gender balance, on the other hand, can generate positive peer effects for the entire cohort, especially women. Linking different administrative datasets on student's applications, admissions and college academic performance, we empirically assess the effects of the policy induced changes in gender composition, on students' higher education outcomes. We first establish that the policy successfully increased women's access to STEM majors, resulting in a 9-percentage-point rise in female enrollment in traditionally male-dominated fields. We document that women (men) entering treated majors after the policy have, on average, lower (higher) high school test scores than their counterparts in untreated majors. Despite this, the policy led to improved college GPA and reduced the likelihood of failing courses in the first year for both men and women in the treated majors. Even among the top high school applicants whose admission status were not affected by the policy, we find that both men and women in treated majors experienced significant GPA improvements. Women's GPA rose by 0.45 SD, compared to a 0.25 SD increase for men. Our results suggest that increased gender diversity, brought by the policy, had positive spillover effects beyond its direct impact on enrollment.

Abstract

This paper evaluates the impact of a gender-based affirmative action policy introduced at Makerere University, Uganda's largest public institution on applicants choice of behavior. Using comprehensive administrative data spanning 2015-2024, I examine how students adjusted their application behavior in response to altered admission probabilities. Employing a difference-in-differences framework, I find heterogeneous responses across admission channels and student populations. For scholarship applications, the policy triggered strategic substitution: men shifted away from treated STEM majors at Makerere toward equivalent programs at other public universities, while women increased applications to these same treated programs. This reallocation left overall gender gaps in STEM applications unchanged but improved women's access to Uganda's most prestigious institution. For private applications, where substitution to other universities is impossible, both men and women expanded their STEM applications within Makerere, with women showing particularly large increases in treated fields—representing genuine expansion rather than mere substitution. I also found significant effects for elite programs within medicine and engineering, where women's likelihood of applying to these majors increased substantially while men compensated by crowding into these programs through private channels. These findings reveal that affirmative action policies can not just expand women's representation in competitive STEM fields, but can also induce behavioral responses by both men and women potentially reshaping their preferences.

Abstract 

This study analyzes whether and how differences in course design and teaching approach affect not only lecture attendance, but also individual and collective learning outcomes. More specifically, we utilize a quasi-natural experiment and exploit variation in attendance policies adopted across four upper-level agribusiness courses to test for differences in course-specific academic outcomes and learning growth. Rather than solely relying on an evaluation of letter grades, we use quantitative measures of overall course performance and improvements in performance. We further provide descriptive evidence of differences in students' learning experiences and sense of belonging. While we find that both mandatory attendance policies and incentivized participation effectively increase lecture attendance, the latter may offer additional benefits. Our findings suggest that adopting a student-centered and inclusive teaching approach that incentivizes active engagement (rather than penalizes absences) supports student learning and can contribute to closing academic achievement gaps.