ABSTRACT In this article, we propose and test a novel explanation for gender segregation in Higher Education that focuses on the misperceptions of economic returns to fields of study. We frame this explanation within the literature emphasizing the role of gender-stereotypical preferences and occupational plans, and we argue that counselling activities in school can play a crucial role in either reinforcing or countering the weight of these expressive mechanisms relative to more instrumental considerations involving occupational prospects of different fields. In particular, we suggest that the availability of reliable, ready-to-use information on these prospects enhances the probability that students, particularly females, opt for more rewarding fields. To test this argument, we present the results of a field experiment conducted in Italy that confronted high school seniors with detailed information concerning returns to tertiary education and field of study differentials, and we assess how girls and boys reacted to this counselling intervention.

ABSTRACT This study provides new empirical evidence about tertiary graduates’ overeducation, by analysing the influence of labour market institutions on the incidence and distribution of the phenomenon across fields of study. In particular, the analyses focus on the level of employment protection, the regulation of access to the so-called liberal professions, and the propensity of welfare states to hire skilled workers. Data from two comparative surveys – REFLEX and HEGESCO – are used, and a wide set of information is employed to split overeducation in two forms of suboptimal allocation of individuals in the labour market: credential and skill mismatches . The first term refers to the mismatch between formal educational credentials and job requirements, whereas the second term refers to the mismatch between the skills acquired through education and those needed to perform a job. Results suggest that field of study differentials vary by country and that welfare and labour market institutions illuminate these cross-national variations. Moreover, the results support the claim that it is necessary to distinguish between credential and skill mismatches, showing that these institutional factors do not always affect them similarly.