Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd decisions of policymakers through the reporting of financial information (Biondi & Suzuki, 2007). Therefore, onanindividual &Suzuki, and economics (Biondi importance. accounting of information of studying financial of influence the providing reporting apply the Beyond they understanding the them. because elect through realities who socio-economic policymakers voters form of the to decisions or thought opinions been policymakers have their by particular, for sought in asked accountants, be Hageman often opinions, may Chen, are opinions knowledge Bobek, These 2005; specialized policy. Dean, more tax 2002; with on (Smith, individuals complexity 2016), overwhelming Advocate, of 2016; state Tian, a & in is policy tax U.S. since et (Roberts education their to economics due and policy tax accounting 2016). analyze Therefore, 2010; to of tax- levels. 1994; necessary knowledge (economy-wide) al., the effects macro of and and more relatively purpose (individual) the gain the micro majors of surrounding the degree evidence both the and policy andcalculation, at to theory not ation the typically anyfield often emphasizes prioritizes though and coursework coursework taxation economics taxation sociology, discuss while Accounting science, do taxa- andeconomics. interest, aspolitical of of of accounting study focused topic such fields in a fields, engage is collegiate often inequality Other not economic do 1994). where Bradley, majors & other who while Hite individuals college, (Roberts, by in completed tion while economics is resources, taxation or scarce on accounting eco- coursework of in about Specialized information major utilization 2013). financial Powers, the of & and communication (Needles and choices entities processing, to nomic measurement, relates direct particularly on it and focuses former 2016) as Tetzlaff, fivethe action 2014; top human (Stockwell, the U.S. of the of study in broad lists major in college ranks popular most consistently 7th economics the called been has Accounting Introduction 1 DOI: classification: JEL estimated the Keywords: universal. would while relatively which institutions, is right-leaning policy education stu- at economics a for and of prominent favor non-minorities, more impact to is males, likely change families, opinion less high-earning education, from somewhat accounting Within dents wealthy. students the make by paid study isuncovered taxes of begin the Evidence increase both programs other majors. than to both found average, opinions andeco- are tax on majors different that, statistically economics foraccounting with and tenure collegiate Accounting the wealthy their examined. end are ontaxing and others, 619 to from in opinions compared students majors, on differences data nomics the survey universities, longitudinal ped- Using focus and for policy, economics. colleges higher oftaxation and implications American to accounting potential views Due of has differing discussed. professions differences have the these often may and of most agogy, degrees understanding are economics An law or graduates. colle- tax other accounting two to and with compared the taxation graduating are students of topic, theory economics social, the the and political, on where the accounting in study Arguably, debate of considerably. much majors of vary giate topic Opinions a is spheres. citizens wealthiest economic the and for rate tax appropriate the Determining 2 1 Wealthy the Taxing on Opinions and Education, Economics Education, Accounting Routon Wesley Philip GRUYTER DE hscneti free. is content This Berlin/Boston. GmbH, Gruyter de Walter 2018 © Routon Wesley Philip Abstract: eateto cnmc,Sho fBsns,GogaGint olg,10 nvriyCne ae arneil,GA Lawrenceville, Lane, Center University 1000 College, Gwinnett Georgia Business, of School Economics, of Department ntutro conig colo uies eri wnetClee 00Uiest etrLn,Lwecvle GA Lawrenceville, Lane, Center University 1000 College, Gwinnett Georgia Business, of School Accounting, of Instructor 04,UA -al [email protected]. E-mail: USA, 30043, [email protected]. E-mail: USA, 30043, Such knowledge potentially enables accounting and economics majors to influence society. For example, society. influence to majors economics and accounting enables potentially knowledge Such 10.1515/ael-2017-0041 aigtewaty a pnos conigeuain cnmc dcto,suetopinions student education, economics education, accounting opinions, tax wealthy, the taxing stecrepnigauthor. corresponding the is 2,A2 I23 A22, H21, 1 enaBerry Reanna / 2 ‘ best ’ olg aoseg Fae,21) h atri the is latter The 2017). (Franek, e.g. majors college conig cnmc,adLw ovvu.21;20170041 2018; Convivium. A Law: and Economics, Accounting, ’ pnoso aainis taxation of opinions s 1 Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd enuiie ospottento hteooiseuaini soitdwt erig sn apeof used sample (2016) Walker a and Using Routon, opinions Hammock, conservative learning. Subsequently, more course. with held economics generally associated introductory students is that an found completing education (1978) after Riddle economics institution, that single a notion have from opinion the students in support changes Accordingly, 2016). to Hodges, utilized & Hall been Malek, the 2014; (Glover, be viewpoints may student opinions sway can formed the that mimesis. indicates than unanimity rather doesnot of thinking opinions Lack critical of 1963). of (Rose, result thisformation opinion strongly 1968). of education However, unanimity university (Nasatir, Robinson, or in bystudents greater college & result this formal of opinions (Davis on a thesis that based formation shown the opinions enlightenment has influences form the research studentsto particular, subsequently called causes In to 2002). also education and Weakliem, theory, Formal 1991; whole enlightenment a to education. as according isundoubtedly society understanding, of understanding of opinions greater a the formation have on influence One opinion and Education 2 2 andeconomics. focus onaccounting a with brief a presents onopinion, section institutions, following of education The right-leaning universal. relatively at influence is the and majors regarding more non-minorities, economics discussion is for males, change change opinion families, become estimated students, average the high-earning accounting on while For from wealthy. and the students opinions, of for change taxation often prominent further favor more ofaccounting to disciplines likely the impact these less of somewhat in significance Students statistical education. the diminish economics not and does experiences character- political collegiate institutional opinions, other and matriculating and household prowess, constant istics, academic accounting holding demographics, Further, both However, student so. therein, tenure. do changes collegiate to and likely during leanings majors more wealthy even changed esti- the are are who of majors students taxation economics those college on and disciplines, American opinions regardless of these their 63% of andgraduation, change approximately Interestingly, to one both. mated within bothmatriculation or always economics, at were or who accounting those into students considers other one than found whether indeed opinions of are different majors statistically economics and have accounting to Undergraduate universities. 2002). and Weakliem, colleges 1991; American Robinson, ferent & (Davis demonstrates holders according majors degree economics since, these and 2016), for accounting occurred Douglas-Gabriel, of has of 2016; opinion learning Webber, value in that 2015; the changes in surrounding Selingo, documenting based theory, debate 2014; heavily majors arerelevant enlightenment the Leonhardt, is to to (e.g. routine accounting evidence of degree this adds opinions college analysis and taxation this life, a Lastly, the daily analysis. of socio-economic regarding routines future findings for ubiquitous Therefore, socio- most of accounting. the the field of expands the impactof one here societal is the evidence taxes (Biondi, Additionally, paying often examine guably, stability here. market Socio-economists explored of of accounting. explicitly study routines field broader not the the is of political- in study specific context economic valuable a that into is insight insight though provides Such opinions 2016), graduates. taxation of of examination viewpoint students the economic of while examination 1975), Rothman, on & focused (Scott largely have Others opinions. characteristics? andinstitutional anditsdirection? nomic/political student change across opinion differ estimated of they do the ontheprobability are exist, what effects factors, such and relevant education If opinions for andeconomics these Controlling do of accounting students? How of place? effects groups average taking other is to task change compare much difficult how therein a and changes often graduation, is matriculation, college it at that dents being theme central 2015). one Zucman, the 2014; with of (Tanzi, Taxation topic, societies misapprehended. academic and and governments complex, researched variable, for well Wollscheid, most a & the Settlage also are (Settlage, the wealthy taxpayers is about the other wealthy by misinformed to paid most compared taxpayers taxes the of short, Schreiber, be 20% In to 2007; top 2015). shown Shevlin, the been by 2007; have paid Saez, students taxes & Third, of (Piketty dividend amount 2016). taxes tax, Sabelhaus, tax marginal gains & complex to Pack capital represent addition Moore, as in often 2015; such payers tax taxes tax minimum income-based wealthy alternative other Second, and incur 2007). tax, commonly in1988 Saez, payers 28% & these Piketty from because 2017; time, situations over (Service, fluctuations 2017 observable most in the 39.6% undergone to have taxpayers of 1% wealthiest the of eerhr aesgetdta h ou nqatttv nlssi conigadeooiseducation economics and accounting in analysis quantitative on focus the that suggested have Researchers h apeue a etogtntoa si ossso ag ubro tdnsfo vr60dif- 600 over from students of number large a of consists it as national thought be may used sample The socioeco- and education higher between relationship the on research existing the to relates study This stu- accounting and economics of opinions taxation the are What examined. are questions following The rates tax marginal the First, wealthy. the of taxation on focuses here analysis the reasons, related three For elyRuo n Berry and Routon Wesley ’ fdiylf,ytacutn a enlreyoitdfo hssuy(ini&Szk,20) Ar- 2007). Suzuki, & (Biondi study this from omitted largely been has accounting yet life, daily of ’ ra oiia iw e.g. views political broad ‘ ubiquitous EGRUYTER DE Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd diinlaayi fdfeecsars dcto ee,icuieo tdnswoddntfns theirdegree finish didnot who ofstudents student the disclose estimated inclusive data (otherwise the level, onlyprohibits while Lastly, education limitation graduates program. thisdata across itisarguable college meaning differences other of of highereducation), of analysis education, solely effects additional higher comprised the general andeconomics be CSS. include would the also of accounting may administered group differences been comparison effects have ideal the not the analyzing would that of they goal otherwise primary since the graduates, limitation. Also, ofthis Given college are theimportance respondents offer of decreasing programs perhaps 33%additionally 100% economics colleges, or and private while accounting 57% believe public to are private; across reason (bydesign), significantly strong vary no included of degrees know the institutions authors (undergraduate) these of However,the four-year as degrees. offer graduate over-represented 81% 100% are Specifically, CIRP. and universities the non-secular; and in are colleges participate religious, often therefore more and institutions Private, type. This institutional study. of this these, 14,691 for Of merged and universities. and bachelor collected a colleges with were American graduated different opinions com- 6,493 619 tax who and from students about students on college asked writing 377,435 were of contains time who panel the and at surveys data for- both available The publicly pleted here. All respectively. incorporated surveys student are exit administers (CSS) and a entrance CIRP Survey near The Insti- Senior very Angles. Cooperative College administered Los and the is - (TFS) runs mer California Survey which of Freshman University Institute, The The Research surveys. at Education several housed Higher (CIRP) the Program from Research tutional come analysis this for students Data economics and accounting of opinions Tax 3 results the presents and study that this in change used of opinion data the evidence details analysis. find descriptive re- section to a following that from expect The as we programs. such reasons, ignorance these education, correct multiple from to inequality. Formal designed stems these (2006). in is for and interest Slemrod opinions, Thus, and of alter misunderstandings. can (1983) lack program, and Keene economics a or of to accounting that collegiate opposed fromgen- a includes as in stemmed inequality, ceived area and 2003) economic (2001 this and in cuts work policy tax Other public Bush administration connect that the argues to to (2005) inability Bartels eral of Americans posed. con- is report indifference question Swedes, not the the but how of Americans, on much that depending show taxation to progressive data on survey taxpayer opinions unfairness of uses tradicting perceptions (2003) opin- increase Edlund policies where system. avoidance demonstrate tax tax to that the theory finding in decision from, behavioral come may from Gras- taxation Kinsey, framing equitable of misunderstanding. on concept ions or the ignorance, use opinions, (1991) Smith changing and to mick, regard with researchers opinions. among taxation of debated inclusive viewpoints, when student consider on to adopt factors programs students confounding educational why are of explains there impacts partly Thus, the only 2017). economically estimating association Thal, and adopting & this McCabe that (Mendelberg, schools clear views are affluent conservative the researchers attending despite the students wealthy but between views, the conservative association of an taxation noted through have redistribution searchers income with disagree to individual Empirical individual likely 2017). an more (Ubel, as is ideologies that individual political notion supersedes perception the that supports believe evidence scholars some gainedthrough taxation, regard. skills to this gard and in con- studied the knowledge universally less beyond students been exist has make may education not accounting do opinion Again, toward courses education. on student shift a formal economics Therefore, influences revealed 1985). other sometimes al., so topics servative, et as specific questions (Jackstadt of instrument opinion representative the In- liberal questions of 1985). a analysis individual Thompson, an of ofabasic & on Analysis based Brennan whole. is Jackstadt, a opinions 1981; conservative completion Proctor, toward & following shift Luker slight opinions 1975; the terestingly, political Rothman, conservative & opinion. (Scoot toward student course shifts economics in slight change find the studies personal of plementary of analysis importance pedagogical increased scarce. relatively a an is on demonstrated education relied that accounting on researchers directions research in changed the Similar majors study, topics economics each of t hs aaaentwtotlmttos hl ag,tesml sntntoal ersnaiei terms in representative nationally not is sample the large, While limitations. without not are data These largely been has beliefs and perceptions tax of issue the population, broader the for but students, just not For Withre- andenvironmental. bothindividual perception, is likely opinion on student influence Another com- Three opinion. student in change the examine to analysis political utilized have researchers Other ’ culicm reuainlvl(rw-anzi udeg a,&Pye 05.Frhr re- Further, 2015). Payne, & Kay, Lundberg, (Brown-Iannuzzi, level education or income actual s ’ erei conigo cnmc,respectively. economics, or accounting in degree s ’ arclto,wietelte eyna rdain ototnas often most graduation, near very latter the while matriculation, s ’ ao fsuya arclto,tedge hygraduated they degree the matriculation, at study of major s ’ ecpino hi oi-cnmcsau nrae the increases status socio-economic their of perception s elyRuo n Berry and Routon Wesley 3 Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd al 1: Table college that Atapproxi- opinion. demonstrating tenure. this level, students for agreement college time of their CSS) during transformative percent changed very and indeed the a TFS students are is the college presented opinion of on 1, majority total Table the responses much in 63%, different mately column how (chose last masking opinion survey the be their the in changed with may Therefore, who agreement proportions place. increase taking response who actually their raw students many is during these as change wealthy to agreement, the close decrease taxing are as further there against statement possible is more it opinion Since their tenure. changes college student college though average wealthy 56%, the to the Thus, opinion decreased the had of proportion The are this students. students ation, of college 40% incoming almost was of rate two-thirds) was response 26%, (or The approximately response. at other response, any common than most now second of do ease they for than form taxes graphical higher in pay statistics sample chose full students the more provides matriculation, At also reference. 1 Figure sub-samples. several across and ple thanactual, NationalElection opinions (American on taxation wealth. decades of influence perceptions overtwo without greater capture for wealthy a often et term (Brown-Iannuzzi studies has the wealth wealth quantifiable of of election perception use Additionally, the inpolitical Finally, 2017). 2012). used al., Studies, et been Mendelberg 2016; has admin- in surveys al., quantification et be found Hammock et can (Brown-Iannuzzi (e.g. quantification e.g. students without mea- population wealthy that general term research the the in to of common istered use is The respondents taxation. survey by of opinions interpreted administrators. qualitatively sures survey be to the by term made this allowing choice ever, a neutrality, respon- of that stance note a to take important to is categories: allowed It strongly. agreement matricu- not four agree were both among and dents near choose somewhat, opinions could agree captured Respondents somewhat, instruments pool. disagree strongly, survey student disagree same these the meaning for CSS, graduation and and TFS lation the both on asked was ion: findings. interpreting when account data). into transcript limitations (i.e. who data students these taken including take courses pools, to student specific multiple on to majors, information compared business never are were any majors were economics captured and accounting not Therefore, details, related and with, 4 l rdae ( graduates All Sample 14,691 ( graduates major Accounting graduation At matriculation At ( major business a Never graduation At matriculation At 59,189 ( graduates major Business graduation At matriculation At ( major economics or accounting an Never graduation At matriculation At 377,435 356,251 = n al rsnstepreto tdnswocoeec epneoto,o ohsres o h ulsam- full the for surveys, both on option, response each chose who students of percent the presents 1 Table term the note to important also is It opin- their asked were they which for statement following the given were students surveys, these of part As “ elh epesol a agrsaeo ae hnte onow. do they than taxes of share larger a pay should people Wealthy elyRuo n Berry and Routon Wesley ) ) 318,246 = n tdn pnoso ute aaino h wealthy. the of taxation further on opinions Student ) = n = n ) = n ) 14.8 11.5 17.0 15.2 15.0 11.8 15.2 12.1 Disagree sample within frequency Percent strongly 1 ehp aigti atlmtto esiprata el tl,raesaeadvised are readers Still, well. as important less limitation last this making perhaps

“ al., 2015), and using the term without quantification is how one would is how quantification without term the using and 2015), al., wealthy 28.5 31.8 24.9 29.0 22.1 28.8 22.3 somewhat Disagree 21.7 “ ” ge somewhat agree ssbetv n a o uniidi hs uvy.How- surveys. these in quantified not was and subjective is “ ge somewhat agree

l,21)adi uvy diitrdseiial to specifically administered surveys in and 2015) al., “ ge strongly. agree 34.7 33.1 36.6 34.5 39.8 34.2 39.3 40.0 somewhat Agree ” ihtesnietta h elh should wealthy the that sentiment the with ” a tl h otcmo response. common most the still was ’ ” ” ae hudices.B gradu- By increase. should taxes s nohrwrs netmtd66% estimated an words, other In h xc aesre question survey same exact The strongly Agree 21.9 18.1 23.2 21.4 26.3 21.8 26.3 26.7 64.6 62.7 62.8 62.5 opinion Changed EGRUYTER DE Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd rprin nTbe1so hteooismjr r ohmr ieyt iarewt h uvystatement survey the with disagree the to aggregate, likely In more tenure. college both during are opinion majors their economics change that to show likely most 1 Table the in also 1. proportions are Table they in rate, unique 74% who most a students over the At time, than are agree in majors disciplines to two economics points always likely the both were less of who even at one Students wealthy, are studying majors. never the accounting accounting were into always on who were switched taxes those who raising and those Interestingly, pool with student question. agree general in to the Account- both likely pool. to student less compared aggregate shown and the are to compared graduates approximately opinion are major their majors change ing accounting to those always likely and were more discipline who points Students the percentage discipline. in seven majoring the always into were forwho beganstudying majors who only switched students not later proportions across those who opinion but and are programs, shown degree Thus, these majors example. of for accounting accounting, graduates always to switched were later who but some students else at something for programs different degree is switch students with) college interacted U.S. Many time. tenure. in during points point both at majors, non-business than 1: Figure Notes GRUYTER DE 5,767 an to Switched matriculation At 726 an Always matriculation At major Economics matriculation At an to Switched lasan Always matriculation At tgraduation At matriculation At ( major economics ( major economics ( graduates 10,855 = ( major accounting tgraduation} At graduation At graduation At graduation At matriculation At 3,836 = ( major accounting tgraduation At hi oa gemn ee a o”iaresmwa” ihriigwatytxsa ohpit ntime. in points both at taxes wealthy raising with somewhat”; ”disagree to was level agreement modal Their statement the with disagree to likely more shown are majors business sub-samples, relevant the Regarding ausare Values : ) ) ) tdn pnoso ute aigtewealthy. the taxing further on opinions Student ) 6,493 = n “ ecn fstudents of percent = n = n n n ) 2 ti eyagal h aeta h vrl olg xeine(..cusstkn peers taken, courses (e.g. experience college overall the that case the arguably very is It 19.3 20.5 24.4 20.9 16.3 23.2 20.0 17.6 12.8 12.0 15.5 16.5 ” ihnec ape tta on ntm.aussonmyntsmt 0. u orounding. to due 100.0 to sum not may shown time.Values in point that at sample, each within 29.0 26.2 37.8 32.6 30.0 27.1 32.1 26.8 30.1 23.9 31.5 26.1 Notes 377,435. = N : 32.6 32.4 24.4 27.9 31.0 31.7 32.5 34.5 38.8 40.7 34.0 35.8 19.0 21.0 14.6 15.1 19.0 20.3 17.8 22.4 18.3 23.4 18.1 22.6 elyRuo n Berry and Routon Wesley 69.8 74.1 70.0 62.9 69.9 64.7 5 Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd Notes 2: Table who level agreement matriculating each within students of level. to percent agreement likely the agreement. graduating as discloses increase each equally 2 to chose likely Figure are more sample, majors additionally full economics but the always likely majors, For were accounting more to (increase) who are compared decrease majors Students when students accounting agreement. agreement always college decrease decrease were of or who (26%) Students increase 37% wealthy. both about the statement to sample, of survey full taxation the the further with to with agreement Referring their agreement 2. increased Table furtherexamine or in To decreased presented either imply. who are each sub-sample) students of (within proportions authors. responses the the survey thethis, from average available in are they differences though than form, thiswas students tabular Since in its results college. from test during different these statistically inopinions present be to to change not found choose significant is we statistically 1 case, a Table was the in there sample each each every is, within of That conclusion and with hypothesis. The opposite, compared null sub-sample. 1 each the Table within reject in being opinions of to study, examined graduating was sub-sample hypothesis and test every alternative matriculating on major the as the performed well is across that with as test average, opposite, is different This its on hypothesis same. thought the opinions null not be same the are truly the opinions tests, that share can these compared In opinions being performed. if sub-samples are judge two tests) better (Mann-Whitney To tests hypothesis vast. statistical not taxation. are on some opinions alter though to likely most this on survey the are majors. study of opinions other programs al- to change against these and respectively, ranked that likely, economics when most always college second were and during who first statement students the that were of is majors however, pool Noteworthy, accounting the ways presented. than not both are do majors to college likely more are turn in who students. majors, college accounting other are all than opinion their change and 6 wthdt neooismajor economics an to Switched major economics an Always graduates major Economics major accounting an to Switched major accounting an Always graduates major Accounting major business a Never graduates major Business major economics or accounting an Never graduates All Sample h atclm nTbe1dmntae htteei oettloiincag apnn mn college among happening change opinion total more is there that demonstrates 1 Table in column last The areapparent, other sub-samples and majors, economics majors, accounting across differences Opinion other all across proportions brevity, For sample. student this in represented are study of majors 75 Over ausi ( in Values : elyRuo n Berry and Routon Wesley pno teghcagr preto tdns ydirection. by students) of (percent changers strength Opinion i ( & ) ii are ) “ ecn fstudents of percent ” 37.4 39.5 37.9 34.5 39.5 35.7 36.9 37.3 37.0 36.8 ( agreement Decreased nsml.SeTbe1frsml sizes. sample for 1 Table See sample. in i ) 32.4 34.6 32.1 28.3 30.4 29.0 25.5 27.3 25.6 26.0 ( agreement Increased ii ) 3 hsfnigad rdnet theassumption to credence adds finding This ( 5.0 4.9 5.8 6.2 9.1 6.7 11.4 10.0 11.4 10.8 Gap i -( )- ii ) 1.154 1.142 1.181 1.219 1.299 1.231 1.447 1.366 1.445 1.415 ( Ratio i /( )/ ii ) EGRUYTER DE Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd eue nsot ohacutn n cnmc aosbgncleels nfe ntxoiin whencom- tax opinions on unified less during college college majors graduates begin college majors (economics) all economics as doaccounting and of accounting pool in opinion both the short, differences ratios, unification In variation Absolute much tenure. in unified. as changes more times by (7.3) bit measured 2.8 a as experiences investigated However, in samples small. diverse other largely more marginally are all become here while majors college, economics of during values types level on two while agreement The opinions, takes diverse. their on most therefore unified ( the and most graduates variability the responses, were economics The more majors modal accounting implying examined. remained of values always sub-samples who larger proportion students student matriculation, with the both the one, minus for and of ratios one zero variation all for as between presents variability for calculated 4 of Table responses is measure ratio. ratio senior The variation variation graduating groups. the student is and other index) freshman to agreement matriculating compared this when (like and variable ordinal opinions, an their on united less or Notes 3: Table has accounting and it agreement. it, average given increase however, less than unsurprising, with agreement perhaps matriculate decrease than to majors is likely other economics This more something and are majors. sub-samples in two small all majoring are that relatively these students shown here of for been larger already either is investigated than proportions the sub-samples economics two or these across between sides accounting changed gap Differences 14% The direction. About regard. graduation. other this by the in opposite in the felt debate but wealthy the the of tax two further the should U.S. of the one believing from switch students the of proportion of what is, That other. the 2: Figure GRUYTER DE wthdt neooismajor economics an to Switched major economics an Always graduates major Economics major accounting an to Switched major accounting an Always graduates major Accounting major business a Never graduates major Business major economics or accounting an Never graduates All Sample tmyas eo neett xmn facutn n cnmc aosedtercleit euemore tenure collegiate their end majors economics and accounting if examine to interest of be also may It debateto ofthe side one from atchange look specifically to is opinions changing examine to way Another ausi ( in Values : “ tnecagr preto tdns ydirection. by students) of (percent changers Stance agree hne nsuetopinion. student in Changes ” i ( & ) pin rvc es?Tbe3sosteevle.Oe 3 fcleesuet matriculated students college of 23% Over values. these shows 3 Table versa? vice or options ii are ) “ ecn fstudents of percent ” 24.6 25.9 24.5 21.8 24.9 22.2 23.5 23.9 23.8 Gap 23.3 disagree From ( disagree to agree From nsml.SeTbe1frsml sizes. sample for 1 Table See sample. in i ) 22.4 21.7 21.8 15.2 18.3 16.0 13.7 15.5 13.8 13.9 ( agree to ii ) less ( 2.2 4.2 2.8 6.6 6.6 6.2 9.8 8.4 10.0 9.4 i nt fareeti hscs) At case). this in agreement of unity ( - ) “ disagree ii ) elyRuo n Berry and Routon Wesley ” epneotost one to options response ( 1.098 1.194 1.124 1.434 1.361 1.386 1.715 1.542 1.725 1.676 Ratio i ( / ) ii ) 7 Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd ausoe w,tre n or ic h eedn aibei ria nntr,seiiain()is estimated (3) specification nature, in ordinal is variable dependent the Since four. and three, two, one, values students we transform using This (3), agreement. regression specification in logistic In change multinomial specifica- change no with this or estimated for agreement, is increased regression model statement, survey logistic the use with we agreement binary, of strength is outcome specification, this first Since our tion. otherwise. in student zero Thus, if and tenure. one college, value college during student the during a on opinion probability takes their the which on variable their economics indicator of and survey accounting strength in the the majoring change with of impacts will agreement separate the in estimate increase to wish an we observe to of impossible opinion an is with it matriculating example, students for for statement since, control of of inclusion the mension by in- shown students heterogeneity, As for unobserved education. control any time-variant higher we for for or level equation, opinions institution tax andthere- control in the effects trends at fixed national across institutions, any clustered Time cluding also regard. are this heterogeneity errors in unobserved for Standard control programs. additional ustocontrol degree economics and accounting allow fore effects fixed indicators); School into interest. (partitioned matriculation college at wealthy the (or indicators taxing further on opinion time where student opin- on study These of analysis. regression programs to turn these of and form factors the confounding effects potentially take true these models for the control is likelytrue estimate therefore the same must better maycomefrom we To they ions, major. Indeed, collegiate average. majorsmay study.Specifically, any on of economics most experiences, and for program their collegiate average than different opinion? estimated Accounting other have tax and/or the ways backgrounds this in are different on what students question: college andeconomics other research from primary differ inaccounting our to of majoring turn now effects we hand, in analysis Descriptive education economics and accounting of Impacts 4 sizes. sample for 1 Table See mode. the not are Notes 4: Table students. less unification economics but and somewhat, accounting overall unification for increase place to takes appears education college students, other to pared 8 X wthdt neooismajor economics an to Switched major economics an Always graduates major Economics major accounting an to Switched major accounting an Always graduates major Accounting major business a Never graduates major Business major economics or accounting an Never graduates All Sample 푖 e fidvda-ee otos(hc nld ohpe n ihncleevariables); within-college and pre- both include (which controls individual-level of set a nteitrs frbsns,w siaesxvrin ftemdldsrbdb h bv qain First, equation. above the by described model the of versions six estimate we robustness, of interest the In Here, h aito ai samaueo ttsia iprini oia itiuin,adi eie stepooto fcaseswhich of the proportion as defined is and distributions, nominal in dispersion statistical of measure a is ratio variation The : 4 t ; nseiiain(2), specification In elyRuo n Berry and Routon Wesley 푦 α aito aisb sample. by ratios Variation 푖푠푡 osattr;acct term; constant a 훽 sa ucm eaigt student to relating outcome an is 1 and “ colfxdeffects fixed school 훽 2 h siae fet fmjrn nacutn n cnmc,rsetvl,are ofkey respectively, andeconomics, inaccounting of majoring effects estimated the , 푦 푖푠푡 푦 푖푠푡 훽 + 훼 = stasomdit aeoia aibewt he eintos erae the decreased designations: three with variable categorical a into transformed is 푖 nidctrfracutn aos econ majors; accounting for indicator an ’ ” arcltn a pnosi l oes hsi atclryipratdi- important particularly a is This models. all in opinions tax matriculating 1 ); acct T 푡 푖 ie(rdaigya)fxdefcs and effects; fixed year) (graduating time 훽 + ’ S uvyrsossit nicesn gemn ee ne with index level agreement increasing an into responses survey CSS i 2 tschool at econ 푖 0.676 0.674 0.683 0.655 0.593 0.642 0.600 0.634 0.602 0.607 graduation ( matriculation At 훾 + i ) s X ’ “ pno nfrhrtxn h elh tgraduation at wealthy the taxing further on opinion s 푖 ge strongly. agree 훿푦 + i hne hi epnet h a uvystatement survey tax the to response their changed 푖,푡− “ ocag nagreement in change no 4 + ( 0.674 0.622 0.690 0.675 0.612 0.660 0.653 0.669 0.655 0.658 At ii S ) 푠 + ” 푖 T nidctrfreooismajors; economics for indicator an 푡 휀 + 푖푠푡 휀 푖푠푡 ( 0.002 0.052 -0.007 -0.020 -0.019 -0.018 -0.053 -0.035 -0.053 -0.051 Change h eiulerrterm. error residual the ii ( - ) ” i stebs category. base the as ) 푦 푦 푖,푡− 푖,푡− S 4 푠 4 h student the institutional nteabove the in EGRUYTER DE 푦 푖푠푡 san is ’ s Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd ihodrdlgsi ersin nseiiain(4), specification In regression. logistic ordered with GRUYTER DE tdnswosatdcleea oeohrmjrbtltrsice oadgautdwt hsmjr When major. this with graduated and to switched later but major other some acct as college started onewhere who sets: students treatment different two and with what specifications switchers model that acct across six confident all effects more estimate we be estimated Therefore, can programs. we the these direction, if non-switchers same for Also, the stronger in discussed) is accounting. are (previously similarity arealready particularly opinion the opinions majors, matriculating Indeed, their that discipline. both demonstrate believe future 4 in if we their Table and within 1 already Table orspecifically those in statistics with pre- of study, average) differently (on are line programs majors in economics these more or by accounting affected as being careers to collegiate disposed their begin who one. students into believe way switched agree. who to versa. those disagree vice than from or stance ent changed tenure, and college disagree, during to responses agree disagree from stance the changed of stance, one change to responses (6), specification agree in Finally, the of one from stance matriculation. (5), specification at In value regression. this tic minus value index level represents agreement graduating (4), specification their in by Hence, measured as college, ing al 5: Table accounting some had have majors. to these likely of are one students always these were of all as courses. majors, economics business and other as well as degree another a left Far left Far Male Variable Liberal graduation at leaning Political right Far Conservative Liberal matriculation at leaning Political religion other Religion: Judaism Religion: Christianity Religion: index self-importance Altruism index self-importance wealth Financial tenure collegiate Non-continuous college during Worked index self-rating Academic GPA College sports intercollegiate Played fraternity/sorority Joined family Intact ($0,000) matriculation at income Family Mother Father score SAT GPA school High majors Switched student Part-time student college generation First citizen) (U.S. student Domestic race non-white Other Hispanic Asian Indian American African-American o h esn etoe rvosy tdnswoawy eandi erepormmyb differ- be may program degree a in remained always who students previously, mentioned reasons the For 푖 푖 n econ and n econ and ’ er fschooling of years s niiullvlcnrlvral umr statistics. summary variable control Individual-level ’ er fschooling of years s “ ochange. no 푖 푖 ee oeeyn h rdae ihteemjr,adoeweeacct where one and majors, these with graduates who everyone to refer ee oalgauts edo tdnswowr vroeo hs aosbtgautdwith graduated but majors these of one ever were who students drop we graduates, all to refer ” 5 hsnwdpnetvral ssilodnl n eteeoeaanueodrdlogis- ordered use again therefore we and ordinal, still is variable dependent new This hnacct When 푦 푦 푖푠푡 푖푠푡 a aeo n hl ubrvlebtenadincluding and between value number whole any on take can saantasomdit aeoia aibewt he eintos i not did designations: three with variable categorical a into transformed again is 푦 푖푠푡 푖 n econ and qasoei student if one equals “ Switchers 15.4210 0.2666 0.0246 0.0156 0.2662 0.2388 0.0137 0.0466 0.0197 0.8243 2.9648 2.6518 0.0505 0.8123 4.0135 3.2086 0.2646 0.1915 0.7910 72.7977 14.7963 1,119.8980 3.3483 0.4918 0.0537 0.1822 0.9661 0.0298 0.0445 0.0480 0.0128 0.0490 0.3846 Mean 푖 ee omjrsicesol,w diinlydo hs who those drop additionally we only, switchers major to refer ” a osiueasuperior a constitute may 푦 푖푠푡 eest the to refers i hne ie ftedbt,ta s hne their changed is, that debate, the of sides changed 2.7110 0.4422 0.1546 0.1241 0.4419 0.4263 0.1162 0.2108 0.1388 0.3806 0.7704 0.9159 0.2190 0.3905 0.7092 0.4575 0.4411 0.3935 0.4066 50.8615 2.4999 178.0154 0.3857 0.4999 0.2254 0.3860 0.1811 0.1700 0.2063 0.2138 0.1122 0.2159 0.4865 SD 훽 1 and change 훽 2 r atrn r nedteefcsof effects the indeed are capturing are nstudent in 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 6 8 89 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min “ treatment elyRuo n Berry and Routon Wesley 푖 i ’ n econ and gemn ee dur- level agreement s ” − ru fw nany in we if group n 3 hr 0 where +3, and 3 “ lasmajors always 19 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 5 4 1 1 1 200 19 1,600 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Max 푖 nyrfrto refer only 9 ” Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd hrmjrcagstepoaiiyoewl nraeareet naeae pcfcto 3 eosrtsthat, demonstrates (3) Specification average. on agreement, increase will one probability the changes major ther a college, took (e.g. during non-continuously employment college with attended who those those participation, together),and live sports who parents intercollegiate (two families membership, intact majors, fraternity/sorority switched who those students, part-time students, score; college SAT the student (GPA); of average the point scale) for five grade statistics school summary high presents mother 5 status; schooling; Table citizenship disclosure, categories); data (six of O race interest example, For the preferences. In in tax variables opinions. control thought, to individual-level such related are to be structure related to household is research, and prior race Demographics in shown experience. been collegiate have their or to pertaining data captured oddsratios. are logits ordered from estimates while effects, marginal Notes 6: Table deviation. standard Notes 10 For points. percentage three about by statement at9 survey stronger the is much theprob- with increases effect agreement accounting this between learning that decrease majors, somewhere economics will of show (2) student effect specification larger seven a approximately potentially from Estimates by ability but points. opinion similar percentage tax a 11 their see and we change 7 majors, will economics student For a points. probability percentage the increases accounting in control. joring additional for student these included a consider are in We squared, change 2010). income the family Lago-Peñas, term, describing & Variables order Lago-Peñas higher controls. or important (1983), and (1997), Taylor-Gooby Beedle more e.g. Heyndels our (see, and among opinions Ashworth policy and tax influence (1995), to Slemrod altruism, thought wealth aspirations, all are income, leanings Family political each). and categories identical (five important an graduation name how and we matriculation describing (what both scale) student atgraduation, the one-to-four to a the student is need (on to is index thestudent include increasing These wealth self-reported financial policyopinions. a oftax matriculation, study at in a income for tocontrol hope specifically wthn noeoois013* .99* 001 .44*082*001**002**- 0.0520*** 0.0214*** 0.8521* - 0.0385*** 0.6404** 0.0349*** -0.0117 0.8997** 0.0969*** 0.8447*** Observations 0.1131** -0.0088 economics into 0.0299** Switching 0.0711*** accounting into Switching aoigi accounting in Majoring variable Independent Conservative Observations economics in Majoring right Far eeal paig h F atrddt nstudents on data captured TFS the speaking, Generally Table 6 presents the results from our multivariate models. Estimates from specification (1) show that ma- show (1) specification from Estimates models. multivariate our from results the presents 6 Table would one variables captured also surveys the characteristics, student general more these to addition In lsee tnaderr nprnhss * parentheses. in errors standard Clustered : is category leaning political Omitted 377,435. = N : elyRuo n Berry and Routon Wesley siae fet fmjrn nacutn andeconomics. inaccounting of majoring effects Estimated ’ er fshoig olg P;rlgo fu aeois;a nraigidx(naone-to- a (on index increasing an categories); (four religion GPA; college schooling; of years s ’ efprevdaaei blte tmtiuain n niaosfrfirst-generation for indicators and matriculation; at abilities academic self-perceived s 008)(.23 008)(.35 003)(.06 003)(0.0055) (0.0031) (0.0041) (0.0076) (0.0739) (0.0044) (0.1305) (0.0056) (0.0188) (0.0399) (0.0273) (0.0362) (0.0099) (0.0487) (0.0132) (0.0235) 3,6 334,868 334,868 001)(.22 008)(.08 018)(.06 004)(0.0045) (0.0044) (0.0076) - (0.1286) 0.0385*** (0.1088) 0.0188** (0.0187) 0.6173** 339,430 0.5427*** (0.0272) 339,430 -0.0133 (0.0210) 0.0945*** 0.0727*** 003)(.13 000)(.30 009)(.06 003)(0.0039) (0.0032) (0.0056) - (0.0399) 0.0213*** 0.0357*** (0.0390) 0.9001** (0.0100) 0.9047** (0.0133) -0.0084 (0.0234) 0.0305** 0.0714*** Multinomial logit (changed Logit (1) Changed (graduating(agreementstance) Increased Decreased opinion) X 푖 htw aefo hs w uvy.Teeicuetestudent the include These surveys. two these from take we that p (2) level agreementopinion) agreement < “ lrimindex altruism .0 ** 0.10; “ 0.0108 0.2572 middle-of-the-road. p 7 < iia ne eciighwiprathligohr in others helping important how describing index similar a – .5 *** 0.05; 10 percentage points. Specification (2) also shows that nei- shows also (2) Specification points. percentage 10 ” p ,adtestudent the and ), ’ < eorpisadpecleelvs hl h CSS the while lives, pre-college and demographics 3,6 3,6 3,6 334,868 334,868 334,868 334,868 3,3 3,3 3,3 339,430 339,430 339,430 339,430 ree ree oi Multinomial Logit Ordered logit Ordered (3) .1 siae rmlgt n utnma oisare logits multinomial and logits from Estimates 0.01. ” 0.1036 0.4371 “ ne aibe ne h oesa eso niaos D= SD indicators. of sets as models the enter variables Index gap ” eetro internship). or semester oi cagdlogit (changed logit (4) change) ’ efrpre oiia enn at leaning political self-reported s 0 0 (5) ’ oiia enn n one and leaning political s ’ re 21)sosthat shows (2017) Brien ’ obndparental combined s 6 (6) “ to father disagree 1 1 EGRUYTER DE ’ er of years s ’ gender; s “ ” 0.0068 0.0053 0.0053 0.0044 to Changed agree ” Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd ieyt dp h pno fn ute aaino h elh thge ae spraso itesurprise. little of perhaps is rates 7: Table higher at wealthy the of more taxation are further brackets no income of higher ap- opinion from an students the from Asimilar That adopt range quintile). to smaller (poorest likely a twoquintiles. 27% having to across strength quintile) the impact significant lowest (richest average statistically for 34% the is proximate with education mid- distribution, economics impact income the of impact household significant in the entire statistically those wealthy except likely; the majors, no the more economics of is 17% for about taxation seen there is are further and pattern quintile with 11%; highest agreement 2nd about the decrease quintile in to rich- dle those likely the majors; more from re- other Students 24% to are 7. Table compared about education increases of when are panel change economics households top opinion and the average of in accounting the 20% shown quintiles(fromthe of as of est distribution, income strength impacts income (real) the the the students, up and moving household accounting monotonically perhaps For its five 20%) and quintile. into richest rates each the is split within different to estimated at students sample opinions the of these 20% change this, poorest may To test therefore 4),a directions. and wealthy, different (specification the in opinions of taxation graduating 6), on opinions 5and suchas (specifications specific estimates, shift more or stance 2), a to capture agreementlevel (specification on overall change of programs directional designed probability are degree two modelsof the specifications the from on of other results impacts the impacts Recall the direction. 7presents theprimary con- as and it captures considered Table might change (4)may be one analysis, type. section, this in and institution Specification previous subsamples. specification the student student onadditional in across discussed performed (4) differ impacts specification estimated they likelihood the of the nature sider the understand better To heterogeneity change Opinion 5 authors. presented the inTable from potential. available estimates earning are the increased but confident of here, impact be more presented the not can capturing we simply not are implying 6 results, insignificant opinions. in statistically ofmajoring tax find on the effects we engineering level computer estimated we and individual Specifically, earning biochemistry/biophysics, present. higher enough even not engineering, typically for for chemical models is similar education control estimate tax we models where on potential, ones wage wealthy, full but increased majors the our the just not not of acct and or programs taxation to these whether attached of further estimates of against the Theoretically, test likely that potential. of a such more earnings areacombination As characteristics of increased be 6 paribus. would ceteris effect potential and the average inTable earning and higher programs presented with degree estimates the effect individuals average of the impacts possible educational is the it Thus, wages. graduation withthesign constant. remaining effects increased, the estimated somewhat education of controls andeconomics individual significance the of accounting statistical in excluding and presented effects models estimated re-estimated are the the we test results of controls, magnitude further whose our To models wealthy. of the the validity of the of ( versions check taxation to alternate further First, estimated against 6. we direction Table and estimates, the tenure, collegiate these in during of is opinion robustness change tax opinion their change this to average likely on more relatively students from makes often economics more and are changes these (2)) in stance (as their demonstrates change (6) to while college likely debate, other more to the to points of relative percentage side that, (2) opposite show 3.5 the (5) about to from are Results majors students. (economics) college accounting other students, to majors compared dis- (economics) pay, wealthy to accounting likely Specifically, the taxes more individuals. student wealthy made (15 decreases are for 10 students taxes disciplines about economics increase are both and which studying accounting policies show - with wealthy (4) agree the from taxing Results further graduation. with at agreement students other economics and as accounting wealthy factors, other of list 10 long are a majors among level agreement matriculating their for controlling GRUYTER DE X oshl noequintile: income Household i “ ,mdl xldn colfxdefcs( effects fixed school excluding models ), tdnsfo ifrn oieooi rusaelkl obgntercleeeuainwithdiffering education their college begin to are likely groups socioeconomic different from Students post- of terms in majors earning high relatively are economics and accounting that considered we Also, bothaccounting showstudying results ourmodel ofcontrol, level significant a implementing after short, In disagree. gemn hne dsrto rmsbapemodels. subsample from ratios odds change, Agreement ” – 6ad36 and 16 – 8 ecn oelkl odces gemn ihteoiinta esol nraethe increase should we that opinion the with agreement decrease to likely more percent 38) – 6pretls ieyt eota iha gemn ee ihfrhrtxto fthe of taxation further with level agreement an high as report to likely less percent 46 any pno hne(pcfcto 1). (specification change opinion S 1 s ,admdl xldn iefxdefcs( effects fixed time excluding models and ), 푖 and econ 2 푖 r otycpuigteeuainlimpacts educational the capturing mostly are 9 o rvt,teerbsns hcsare checks robustness these brevity, For 3 elyRuo n Berry and Routon Wesley 4 T t 8 .I l ae,the cases, all In ). naltrecases three all In 5 “ agree 11 ” Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd nti tdn ape(ht,Bak ipnc sa,adOhrRc) h otmtopnl fTbe7 Table of accounting of impact The panels significant. two statistically not bottom is to students The is constrained female on Race). ofaccounting impact Other estimated effect opinion the and tax is, the That Asian, that males. finds Hispanic, analysis within-gender Black, The results. (White, these present sample student this in 3: Figure aresplit students when seen those than here insignificant statistically is smaller education are income. accounting differentials household of by change impact Opinion estimated than schools. likely the more left-leaning are fact, turn at In in decrease schools. who to schools, likely left-leaning middle-leaning more at at are these than schools of those wealthy right-leaning positions the at of the students taxation disclose majors, further 3 both with Figure for agreement in that, lines show vertical 7 Table The in and percentile. 33rd Results 66th the splits. between the above those variable, those new and this percentile, of percentile 66th 33rd the control below those leaning representing which right-leaning) political and variable, the institution-level using new calculated this institution 1 the of is of range distribution schools (continuous) the potential sampled a presents 619 has 3 the Figure previously. of discussed each university variable or for college students a of graduating opinions identify favorable of To (more) system. less tax with progressive associated generally the are views political (liberal) conservative elsewhere, 4. Section Notes 12 conigmjrimpact major Accounting cnmc ao impact major Economics impact major Accounting ethnicity: Student impact major Economics impact major Accounting gender: Student impact major Economics impact major Accounting leaning: political Institutional impact major Economics ial,tesml ssltars edradte aeehiiy fwihteeaefv vial categories available five are there which of race/ethnicity, then and gender across split is sample the Finally, and U.S. the In attended. institution the of leaning political general the across split is sample the Next, lsee tnaderr nprnhss * parentheses. in errors standard Clustered : elyRuo n Berry and Routon Wesley nttto-ee oiia enn distribution. leaning political Institution-level ’ rdaigsuet.Shosaete rknit he qal ie aeois(et,middle-, (left-, categories sized equally three into broken then are Schools students. graduating s – hr ihrnmesrpeethge vrg osraimamong conservatism average higher represent numbers higher where 5 p < .0 ** 0.10; (0.0414) 0.7272*** (0.0692) 0.9939 0.6889*** 0.8718*** White (0.0169) (0.0301) p < .5 *** 0.05; p < .1 opr oseiiain()fo al ,dtie in 6,detailed Table from (4) specification to Compare 0.01. (0.0792) 0.6954*** (0.1388) 1.0084 Black (0.0214) 0.7028*** (0.0467) 0.9516 Female (0.0310) 0.7206*** (0.0693) 0.9409 Left (0.0389) 0.7193*** (0.0614) 0.9440 ’ eea enn,teaeaepltclleaning political average the leaning, general s 008)(.69 (0.1614) (0.0689) 0.9327 1.0393 (0.1804) 0.6630*** (0.0681) 0.6608*** (0.0984) Other 0.9453 (0.1283) Asian 0.9129 Hispanic (0.0240) 0.6940*** (0.0355) 0.8864*** (0.0219) Male 0.6960*** (0.0367) 0.6961*** (0.0375) 0.8103*** (0.0322) (0.0465) Right 0.9042* (0.0314) 0.6617*** Center (0.0589) 0.6721*** (0.0365) 0.7595*** 0.7097*** (0.0627) 0.8277** (0.0565) 0.8942* EGRUYTER DE Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd cin fasnl rtcltikrcnscoeooial n oiial mattefnnilmresofan markets financial the the study, impact case politically their and individual in socio-economically an reveal on can (2014) thinking Lahav thinker critical and critical indicate Chernin single to As a 2002). seems of Weakliem, which actions 1991; 1963), Robinson, (Rose, & opinion (Davis unanimous level diverse a the not given but surprise little 1968), as comes this and and trivial, accounting professions. near that these nowhere students in evidence is of uncover opinions percent shift we the wealthy, opposite though the ashow the of short, such taxation characterize In further wealthy. who questions, against the policy opinions moves of tax often specific that more more education be with economics should posed burden are they the a once of of more much favor much in economists, vary to are professional tend 79% of opinions Polls and government but works increasing not. economy) and/or do taxes an who (decreasing stimulate taxation policy numbers to eco- additional fiscal the expenditure believe expansionary on from believe further 90% dissimilar Based now that too direction. who show not example, students other is for these the optimal of is in numbers opinions wealthy opinion the the their their surprising of of not changed strength is (32.1%) of it the 29.0% a diversity surveys, changed but nomic graduates demonstrate taxation, (economics) findings further ideal policyad- accounting Our against of Logically, more thought. society. impact (37.9%) critical on 35.7% by a direct supported since have perspective perspective is of ofpolicymakers diversity argument (Glover, includes makers This thedecisions policy vice 2014). and advised (Macve, historically have e.g. 2014), economists research Zeff, outcomes and normative 2014; socio-economic accountants and desirable because positive here ensure both salient to that particularly argue tandem scholars in Therefore, continue society. must impact 2016). that al., et decisions (Malek make program may degree quantitative of part demonstrated as as training changed strongly normative easily so embedded not economists be education with are may student course collegiate viewpoints view, where student positive modern experiment that a in whole one of analysis a by foundation the quantitative as the for on programs analysis, cause education focus Quantitative in One strong 2016). embedded 2016). a al., al., of et et Malek presence (Malek 2014; the (Glover, views is economists positivist towards viewpoints student and in trained views academically shift normative that from supported away research ac- Glover shifted Although subsequent have academic 2014). (Glover, accountants, general, views on held in previously focused from view- that change (2014) normative a moral revealed a representing by hold 1953; has viewpoints currently both driven analysis M, policymakers with are accounting point, Historical (Friedman, while that values viewpoints 2014). positive Glover, actions and hold and 2010; currently beliefs countants decisions (Smith, personal on ideals from focuses ethical free viewpoint and is normative that a Conversely, analysis and 2014). quantitative decisions Glover, that by emphasizes driven viewpoint positive be A actions policymakers. ontaxopinions. and academics programs among ofthese viewpoints sophical effects tenure, college ofcausal during opinions evidence tax additional their How- find alter we outcomes. who that respectively, to and majors, goals economics program or educational accounting always of were comparison of require analysis would require issoci- students would latter learning the the former ever, the the as and whether effective, on desirable, are is programs evidence what educational provide do not the whether findings or our desirable but ologically occurred, has learn- learning this students and that the occurred, evidence of has result learning wealthy. the the that likely of evidence is taxation are on ing opinion majors in economics changes and theory, accounting enlightenment of to opinions According in changes any document to out set We Conclusions 6 shed to likely are change opinion the disciplines. behind reason than thatof across reported difference or this whichcontain timing data on more universal the light sample, and/or national appears content this in education course available on of economics not information Though finding. effect noteworthy a opinion the is in only tax education accounting the of insignificant statistically The impact That is category. and however, estimated. race, Race differences and racial Other gender and both gender inthese across the consistent for highly of students reason is the economics opinions be average same may the the This influence in categories. to Results income appears quintiles. higher only income education household accounting higher that the shown t u idnsainwt ro ieauei httegautseprecdafrainofopinion (Nasatir, formation a graduates experienced the that in literature prior with align findings Our who professionals, future become presumably will students as trivial not are students of viewpoints The normative philo- positive and in both shift noted a of evidence bedemonstrable also may findings Our ’ hnighsbe lee seiecdb h siae 0ad7 ecn fsuet who students of percent 74 and 70 estimated the by evidenced as altered been has thinking ’ dctoa xeine rmapdggclvepit u idnsare findings our viewpoint, pedagogical a From experience. educational ’ oi-oiia iw i o hneatrcmltn single a completing after change not did views socio-political “ eaieicm tax income negative elyRuo n Berry and Routon Wesley ” Mni,2017), (Mankiw, 13 Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd Notes 8: Table values negative change, opinion agreement. no increased to values positive refers and zero agreement, (TFS) of in freshman magnitude decrease matriculating change a their designate agreement minus level an agreement Thus, (CSS) level. senior agreement student graduating A index. their with agreement is names increasing magnitude an statement, category creating respectively, change four survey four these and the disagree three, replace two, categories: We with strongly. one, agreement values change agree four the and agreement among somewhat, of choose agree could magnitude somewhat, students disagree the strongly, Recall, details samples. student further relevant that the table across a present we Here, leave We study. longitudinal a with accomplished be accountants perhaps thinking study. critical could future of for and impact tasks warranted, political these also and is socio-economic define and to the economists taxed, students of further asks and be study which questionnaire not Further A should valuable. opinion. or prove this should also in wealthy Alternatively, change coverage. the a topic feel about brought they of has why methods what on factors totest and questioned courses, Possible directly of be andcalculations. composition thetheorybe- could policy topic on students current coursework, focuses on of timing focuses because economics the accounting may be include while of taxation, be the change may change effects majors in in the the accounting the educa- change hind why for difference change of of the the the examination prompted that to an speculate compared that factors particular, We universal relatively warranted. system specific In was opinion. tax majors the economics student the explore for in opinion of can change in study the research prompt focused Future that the majors. experience of economics tional factors and the accounting test for not opinion do political we the for opinion, future dent bright a suggests colleges by thinkers fields. critical socio-economic of and creation the Therefore, country. entire 14 Appendix wthdt neooismjr3.2 major economics an to Switched major economics 3.3 an Always graduates major Economics major accounting an to Switched major accounting an Always graduates major Accounting major business a Never graduate major Business major economics or accounting an Never graduates All Sample hl u td rvdsa xmnto n icsino h esrbeidctr ftecag nstu- in change the of indicators measurable the of discussion and examination an provides study our While ausare Values : elyRuo n Berry and Routon Wesley gemn ee hnemagnitudes. change level Agreement “ ecn fstudents. of percent ” e al o apesizes. sample for 1 Table See 3.7 3.3 3.1 3.1 3.1 2.7 3.1 3.0 -3 magnitude change Agreement 9.9 9.9 9.8 9.3 9.4 9.4 9.8 10.4 10.0 9.9 -2 24.3 25.9 24.8 22.0 27.0 23.2 24.0 24.3 24.0 23.9 -1 30.0 37.1 30.1 30.2 25.9 35.3 37.5 35.4 37.3 37.2 0 18.3 20.3 20.8 20.5 18.3 18.9 18.2 22.2 18.3 18.5 +1 10.8 6.0 7.3 6.3 5.7 6.6 5.8 5.9 +2 11.8 7.4 “ wealthy ’ agreement s EGRUYTER DE 2.9 2.0 2.3 2.2 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.6 +3 2.4 4.9 ” may Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd ini .(06.Epwrn aktbsdfiac:Ant nbn alusi h femt fteNrhAlni iaca rsso 2007. of Crisis Financial Atlantic North the of aftermath the in bailouts bank on note A finance: market-based Empowering welfare. (2016). and Y. mind. taxation Biondi, American about the opinion in Public policy altruism: public and and Ambivalence Taylor-Gooby, Inequality P. (1983). P., & cut: Beedle, tax a gets Homer (2005). M. L. Bartels, Politicians (1997). B. Heyndels, & J., Ashworth, solutions/college-career-readiness/compare-act-sat/. http://www.act.org/ at: Available scores. SAT & ACT Compare (2015). ACT.org. References ontaxopinions. impact Note: level) gradua- at Article 90%confidence desires the wealth financial at and opinions only tax (though engineering) matriculating computer significant for or statistically biochemistry/biophysics control not a to (but have education able to respectively. engineering are shown chemical majors, we excluded, is three because are controls part these these large of when in one is, due That variables. with tion. be indicator students to of 113 appears sets very important, and This as 2,441, models important, 1,782, 9 our somewhat includes College enter not sample important, index American Our an was: the constitute 8 post-graduation took the which wealth on who controls financial table students All accumulating ACT-to-SAT conversion essential. For the that or U.S. using respond the score could SAT in Students equivalent admission the 7 college into for score 2015). ACT (ACT.org, test website their typical ACT convert official we not the SAT, terms). absolute not does is in SAT, andthe but smaller accounting (ACT), or unchanged, Test, and remain exam areslightly Testing levels Aptitude economics Scholastic (they than significance slightly The andstatistical other only programs change signs 6 Specifically, way. effects in significant estimated graduates a the in business of 6 were magnitudes Table who in presented students results fromwhich including results the estimates. (LPMs), change that similar however, models yield note, probability models We oflinear probit Similarly, the form here. 5 in presented the estimates estimated wealthy also taxing logistic were on the specifications logit mirror the theiropinion astronomy. robustness, and additional to change For science, marine enforcement, general likely 4 pre-law/law education, least accounting, physical economics, majors music/art, five were wealthy science, The the veterinary). library taxing (Chenwere &Soldnew, and on dentistry theiropinion (including respectively pre-medicine to change (science, and education, STEM likely business, their college most and majors in science, five health The education, point of 3 U.S. at some percent the 28 and in fields 35, majors switch 42, 2013). majors non-business reports requirement. Statistics elective mathematics) and Education science and courses, for asocial Center engineering, accounting technology, National fulfill any the to examples, take often As to course, major economics 2 non-business one most a at for take rare typically is it anecdotally, However, available. authors the To 1 Notes and 1994 between graduates recent among agreement of proportions the in change 2006. little was there strates, 4: Figure GRUYTER DE ini . uui .(07.Scoeooi mat fitrainlacutn tnad:a introduction. an standards: accounting international of impacts Socio-economic (2007). T. Suzuki, & Y., Biondi, conig cnmc,adLw Convivium A Law: and Economics, Accounting, 479 demon- 4 Figure As period. sample the within time across opinions student graduating present also We 585 – – 602. 502. rdaigsuetoiin costime. across opinions student Graduating ’ okn ae:Pes ontqoeo iewtotauthors without cite or quote not do Please Paper: Working nweg,ntoa aao conigadeooiscus atcpto mn o-uiesmjr sntreadily not is majors non-business among participation course economics and accounting on data national knowledge, ’ , rfrne nlcltxrts neprclanalysis. empirical An rates: tax local on preferences 6 1,79 (1), – 84. ’ esetvso Politics on Perspectives permission. uoenJunlo oiia Economy Political of Journal European oiy&Politics & Policy elyRuo n Berry and Routon Wesley oi-cnmcReview Socio-Economic , 3 1,15 (1), , 11 – 31. 1,15 (1), – 39. , 5 , (4), 13 (3), 15 Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd eig,J 21) scleewrhtecs?Mn eetgautsdon graduates recent Many cost? the worth college Is (2015). attitudes. J. Selingo, political student on course economics introductory an of effect The P. (1975). M. Rothman, & H., J. Scott, expatriates on grade. tax the New making P. (2015). Not S. Schreiber, education: for incentives Tax analysis: News issues. (2012). critical M. on Sapirie, opinions Student unanimity: of taxation. myth progressive toward The attitudes (1963). Understanding P. I. Rose, (1994). F. C. Bradley, & P. A., Hite, L., M. Roberts, course. economics introductory an of effects The issues: economic on opinions Student (1978). T. perspective. Riddle, international and historical A system? tax federal U.S. the is progressive How (2007). E. Saez, & T., Piketty, O (2013). M. Powers, & E., B. Needles, https://taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/reports/2016-annual- at: Available Congress. to Report Annual 2016 (2016). Advocate. Taxpayer National https://www.irs.gov/advocate/national-taxpayer- at: Available Congress. to students. Report university Annual of 2010 orientation (2010). political Advocate. Taxpayer the National and effects holders. contextual wealth on top note of A income (1968). Taxing D. Nasatir, (2016). J. Sabelhaus, & J., S. Pack, B., K. Americans. Moore, affluent of views economic the and socialization College (2017). A. Thal, & T., K. McCabe, T., Mendelberg, economics normative of effectiveness (2017). the G. Mankiw, and ethics and economics between relationship The (2016). D. C. Hodges, & C., J. P., Hall, N. Malek, (2014). students. R. of Macve, orientation political the on microeconomics in course introductory an of effect The (1981). says. W. Proctor, data & new W., Luker, yes, Clearly it? worth college Is (2014). D. Leonhardt, countries. European from Evidence perspective: comparative in morale tax of determinants The (2010). S. Lago-Peñas, & burdens. I., Lago-Peñas, tax personal of evaluations Taxpayer justice: Framing (1991). W. K. Smith, & G., H. Grasmick, A., public K. the Kinsey, about know we do What (1983). K. students Keene, college on courses economics introductory of effect The (1985). S. Thompson, & J., Brennan, L., S. Jackstadt, https://www.irs.gov/uac/soi-tax-stats-individual-statistical-tables-by-tax-rate- at: Available stats. tax SOI (2017). research. Service. Revenue tax Internal of review A (2010). S. Heitzman, & economics. M., learning Hanlon, after and before majors economics of opinions The (2016). K. J. Walker, & P. W., Routon, R., M. Hammock, places? traded setters standard accounting financial and accountants academic Have (2014). J. Glover, (1953). M. Friedman, majors. college 10 Top (2017). R. earnings. Franek, highest incoherent? the and with Ignorant taxation: majors towards 50 Attitudes the (2003). are J. These Edlund, off? pay to college Want (2016). D. Douglas-Gabriel, simplification. tax of future the and election, check-the-box the deregulation, Tax complexity: Attractive (2005). S. Dean, Men (1991). V. R. Robinson, & research. J., accounting N. tax Davis, academic of impact policy the Increasing debate: policy tax The (2016). T. Shevlin, & R., Clemons, (2014). Y. Lahav, & Y., Chernin, students College attrition: STEM (2013). M. Soldnew, & X., preference. Chen, political shapes status Subjective (2015). K. B. Payne, & multiple C., of A. effects Kay, B., the K. of investigation Lundberg, experimental L., An J. Brown-Iannuzzi, better? choices more Are (2016). Y. Tian, & M., A. Hageman, C., J. Chen, D., D. Bobek, 16 ’ re,R 21) eitiuinadtenwficlscooy aeadtePorsiiyo tt n oa Taxes. Local and State of Progressivity the and Race sociology: fiscal new the and Redistribution (2017). R. Brien, ?utm_term=.1fa4d1fed914. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/09/30/is-college-worth-the-cost-many-recent-graduates-dont-think-so/ Education Perspectives ogy report-to-congress/full-report congress advocates-2010-annual-report-to- Science ical learning. and attitudes student on Education Economic Economy Political of Journal pean 25 Education Economic of nal and-income-percentile. Education Economic vivium majors 34 Association Taxation American Convivium A Law: and Economics, 2014001rev.pdfhttps://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/ incentives. tax 111 States. United 15 – 4,845 (4), 1,405 (1), – , 26. elyRuo n Berry and Routon Wesley 114. 122 , 4 4,1015 (4), 1,17 (1), , – – , 6 467. 874. , 61 2,107 (2), 21 “ 3,606 (3), – 1,3 (1), rnilso economics of Principles mrcnScooia Review Sociological American rdn Places Trading h ora fteAeia aainAssociation Taxation American the of Journal The 26. – sasi oiieeconomics positive in Essays 1049. , , – – 12 47 112. 24. – 2,54 (2), 1,76 (1), 623. , 16 “ 1,37 (1), – – h epedmn oiljustice social demand people The , 83. 57. ” 38 , rnilso nnilacutn.Fnnilacutn series accounting Financial accounting. financial of Principles K(n FS comment. IFRS) (and UK A : , 26 1,29 (1), 4 – 2,99 (2), 4,441 (4), 51. ora fEooisadEooi dcto Research Education Economic and Economics of Journal 8he..Bso,M:CnaeLearning. Cengage MA: Boston, ed.). (8th h rneo Review Princeton The ’ n women and s – 37. – ’ 121. – it n eussgt rp regs. prop. gets bequests and gifts nvriyo hcg Press. Chicago of University . , 453. 56 1,72 (1), ’ tiueo progressivity? on attitude s ’ – osiuns fgne nqaiy uti,Ws emn,GetBian n the and Britain, Great Germany, West Austria, inequality: gender of consciousness s 84. vial t https://www.princetonreview.com/college-advice/top-ten-college- at: Available . ora fAcutn n Economics and Accounting of Journal conig cnmc,adLw Convivium A Law: and Economics, Accounting, ’ , ah noadoto TMfils ttsia nlssrpr.Aalbeat: Available report. analysis Statistical fields, STEM of out and into paths 38 ” h e okTimes York New The aesuyo h mato rtsso nnilmarkets. financial on protests of impact the on study case A 2,111 (2), ’ cniainPltclStudies Political Scandinavian hn o h ahntnPs,Aalbeat: Available Post, Washington The so. think t – 128. oilg fEducation of Sociology ainlTxJournal Tax National ora fAccountancy of Journal ainlTxJournal Tax National a Notes Tax p.3. . , 17 1t d) egg Learning. Cengage ed.). (12th 1,16 (1), , 50 Otbr2,21) 335 2012), 22, (October , , 36 2,127 (2), mrcnScooia Review Sociological American – , , 1,129 (1), 24. 26 36 , ulcOiinQuarterly Opinion Public conig cnmc,adLw Con- A Law: and Economics, Accounting, 2,145 (2), 220 3,371 (3), , h ahntnPost Washington The 69 h ora fEooi Education Economic of Journal The – 178. , – 4,965 (4), 6,75 (6), 4 149. 1,27 (1), – – 376. 167. – h ora fEconomic of Journal The – 76. – mrcnJunlo Sociol- of Journal American a oit Review Society & Law scooia Science Psychological 980. 40. ’ mrcnJunlo Polit- of Journal American conservatism. ora fEconomic of Journal – 340. osr a Review Law Hofstra h ora fthe of Journal The . , , 58 h ora of Journal The h ora of Journal The 33 EGRUYTER DE Accounting, 2,165 (2), 2,210 (2), h Jour- The , , 26 Euro- – , – 190. 9 219. (1), (2), , Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd umn .(2015). G. Zucman, on reflections historical Some (2014). A. S. Zeff, study. international An opinions: political on education of effects The (2002). L. D. Weakliem, taxes. hate people rich Why (2017). P. A. Ubel, U.S. the in majors popular most 10 Top (2016). and R. Tetzlaff, Fedesarrollo the at presentation for prepared Paper note. historical A development: economic equitable and Taxation (2014). V. Tanzi, majors. college popular mot 10 Top was: ever it as Same (2014). C. Stockwell, policy. savings retirement in Complexity P. (2002). Smith, (2010). A. Smith, taxation. of consequences The 1934. (2006). and J. Slemrod, 1994 policy: tax about opinions Professional (1995). J. Slemrod, professor accounting an From research: tax of future The (2007). T. courses. Shevlin, economics of principles in knowledge Measuring (2015). R. J. Wollscheid, & A., L. Settlage, M., D. Settlage, GRUYTER DE Convivium 14 rich-people-hate-taxes-its-not-reasons-you-think popular-majors Center Wilson Woodrow http://college.usatoday.com/2014/10/26/same-as-it-ever-was-top-10-most-popular-college-majors/ Research Education Economic 29 2,141 (2), 2,87 (2), – – 93. , 157. 4 1,41 (1), h hoyo oa sentiments moral of theory The h idnwat fntos h cug ftxhavens tax of scourge The nations: of wealth hidden The – 48. ’ ofrneon Conference s , 16 3,241 (3), – 252. scooyToday Psychology Penguin. . “ “ ai n uv eom Tributaria, Reforma Nueva una Hacia aeaaeisadtesadr etr rddplaces? traded setters standard the and academics Have oilPiooh n Policy and Philosophy Social olg Factual College ainlTxJournal Tax National vial t https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/scientocracy/201709/why- at: Available . nvriyo hcg Press. Chicago of University . vial t http://inside.collegefactual.com/stories/top-10-most- at: Available . ainlTxJournal Tax National ’ , perspective. s S Today USA 23 , 55 2,73 (2), 3,539 (3), – ” 87. vial at: Available . – ooá ooba uut2,2014. 28, August Colombia, Bogotá, 553. h ora fteAeia aainAssociation Taxation American the of Journal The , 48 nentoa ora fPbi pno Research Opinion Public of Journal International 1,121 (1), – 147. ” conig cnmc,adLw A Law: and Economics, Accounting, elyRuo n Berry and Routon Wesley ora fEooisand Economics of Journal , , 17