Discussant: Pamela Giustinelli (Bocconi University).

Abstract: We study how applicants form and act on beliefs about admission, enrollment, and completion in a centralized higher-education system. Using a design-based survey, we elicit applicants' beliefs about (i) being admitted, (ii) enrolling if admitted, and (iii) completing if enrolled, and we link these to administrative outcomes. A regression-discontinuity design that exploits admission cutoffs identifies beliefs and corresponding potential outcomes for different counterfactuals. First, decomposing applicants' enrollment beliefs shows that most unconditional enrollment forecast errors come from misjudging the system (i.e., the admission chances), not from mispredicting own choices (i.e., one’s own take-up if admitted). Second, decomposing completion beliefs shows that most unconditional completion forecast errors do not come from mispredicting own intent (i.e., enrollment), but rather from misjudging own persistence (i.e., completion given enrollment). Comparing first-choice and next-best programs, people are not better at judging differences than levels: they overstate how much better the first choice is and therefore undervalue the next-best. At the same time, applicants' subjective probabilities of enrolling if admitted match actual take-up similarly for both programs, while optimism about persistence appears in both. The results suggest that informational improvements in the admission process should focus on admission probabilities and on realistic, program-specific completion risks.

Chair: Micole de Vera.

Contact: Micole de Vera.

Location: Meeting room DG Economics.

Timetable: 2025.12.03 (12:00-13:00).