Education and Globalization in Southeast Asia Issues and Challenges

134 Mohamad Fahmi

TABLE 5.9

Non-Linear Decomposition of Higher Education Participation with

Selectivity Bias Correction

Private NR Private Islam Private Christian

Higher Ed. Participation Diff.l 0.249 0.172 –0.136
From school choice differences in:
FOREGONE 0.114 0.067 0.037
(0.005) (0.004) (0.004)
TSRATIO 0.000 0.002 0.001
(0.000) (0.002) (0.002)
MALE –0.000 –0.001 –0.008
(0.001) (0.001) (0.003)
ISLAM 0.001 0.003 –0.013
(0.001) (0.005) (0.024)
LANGINDO –0.010 0.013 –0.004
(0.003) (0.003) (0.003)
URBAN –0.001 0.000 –0.001
(0.003) (0.001) (0.004)
SIBLING 0.003 –0.001 –0.009
(0.001) (0.001) (0.003)
WORKSMA 0.001 0.001 0.000
(0.001) (0.002) (0.001)
SMAFAIL 0.001 0.001 –0.001
(0.000) (0.001) (0.002)
ZNEMSMA 0.010 0.007 –0.006
(0.003) (0.002) (0.002)
FATHSHHE 0.021** 0.025 –0.004
(0.005) (0.005) (0.003)
MOTHSHHE 0.012 0.013 0.001
(0.003) (0.004) (0.002)
N 1 1,717 1 1,398 1 1,176

Standard errors are in parenthesis and heteroscedasticity consistent. Significance at 10 per cent level,
Significance at 5 per cent level, and Significance at 1 per cent level. Dummies representing the
province where individual was lived and selectivity variables were also included in the model.

proportion of mother that attends upper secondary or higher education
in public school (14.8 per cent) is more than twice that of the private
secular school (7.7 per cent). ABILITY also plays a role in higher education
participation gap. Even though ABILITY is not as strong as parent education
and income, it contributes 0.011 to the total gap. As expected, the academic
ability of student from public school is higher than private secular school.