The effect of the switch to multiple-choice format evaluations during the pandemic on female and male economics students at the University of Los Andes

Abstract

This study examines the effects of using multiple-choice formats in evaluations as a response to the new teaching and learning reality caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, on female and male economics students' grades at the University de Los Andes. I use students' academic history in economics subjects to track their performance before, during, and after the time when the classes were delivered online only. The literature that finds differences between men's and women's performance in multiple-choice tests is vast. Apart from economics, fields such as psychology and biology study these topics and have not yet come to a particular explanation for why men outperform women in a great majority of cases. Some authors' hypotheses are risk aversion, cognitive styles, ability to answer multiple-choice questions, psychological effects, and cultural reasons. I am able to separate the effect on performance from the possible consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic as well as any other mental health issues by using a Triple Differences approach and an Event Study with gender interactions. I find that using multiple-choice formats does not influence female students¿ GPAs. The mechanism proposed to explain this result is that, since female economics students were admitted through a multiple-choice admission test, they are already intelligent and skilled enough not to be affected by this switch in evaluation formats.