Higher education provides a set of benefits for both individuals and society as a whole (Jongbloed, 2005). The positive returns to higher education at the individual level are expressed in higher wages, consumption, savings, and higher living standards (Prakhov, 2023). Moreover, higher education is a driver of economic growth (De Meulemeester, Rochat, 1995; Hanushek, Woessmann, 2010), which is especially important in the modern knowledge economy (Marginson, 2010). Over the past few decades, many countries have made a transition to mass education, but despite this, certain cohorts of students remain underrepresented in the tertiary sector (Perna, 2006): for example, children from low SES families, rural students, minorities etc. One such category is first-generation students, i.e. those whose parents do not have experience in higher education (Pascarella et al., 2004; Ives, Castillo-Montoya, 2020).

Parental education is one of the most important factors determining academic outcomes, as established in the Coleman Report (Coleman, 1968) and many subsequent studies across countries (Hanushek, 2016; Gustafsson, Yang Hansen, 2018; Liu et al., 2020). Thus, parental higher education, due to more efficient investments in human capital, contributes to the growth of students' academic achievements: they receive higher grades, are more likely to enter universities (including selective ones) and graduate from them, and, as a result, find better-paid jobs. As a result, first-generation students find themselves in a less advantageous position and face a number of risks associated with inequality of access to higher education (Engle, 2007). In turn, this leads to more serious consequences in the labor market.

Parental higher education is an important element of the educational production function, which represents relationships between students' academic achievement and resources directed towards investments in human capital (Hanushek, 2020). Currently, in many countries, admission to universities is based on the results of entrance examinations, which reflect not only students' abilities but also family resources and school background, which is also influenced by family characteristics (Woessmann, 2005). Russia, where the Unified State Exam (USE, a system of standardized examinations) is used as the main mechanism for admission to higher education, is no exception (Prakhov, Bugakova, 2023). Higher USE scores increase the likelihood of successful admission to the chosen university. However, despite having scored the required number of points, students with low SES, including first-generation students, may choose universities of low selectivity due to the lack of necessary support from their parents (Prakhov et al., 2020).

This paper is devoted to assessing the differences in academic achievements (USE results) between first-generation and traditional students. In addition, we assess the differences in the level of selectivity of universities where the students were enrolled. Separately, we estimate the differences in the factors that contribute to academic achievement of first-generation and traditional students. The results of the study allow us to assess the degree of inequality of access to higher education that first-generation students face, all other things being equal. Based on the results obtained, recommendations aimed at smoothing out educational inequality are proposed. They can be used in an international context, including in post-socialist countries where there is a shortage of financial and non-financial support for students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

The main theoretical concept used is the human capital theory (Becker, 2009), which considers parental education as one of the most important resources aimed at increasing productivity, including that expressed in the academic achievements of students.

Most studies analyzing academic achievement and the impact of parental education on student performance use statistical methods such as comparison of means or linear educational production function, based on survey data. However, the use of linear models where one of the dependent variables is the level of parental education may lead to bias in the estimates of the coefficients, since parental education may correlate with other indicators of SES (for example, with income), and also determine the school background. To solve this problem, we use propensity score matching – a quasi-experimental method that allows us to more accurately determine the differences in academic achievement between first-generation students and classic students caused by differences in parental education. In addition, the use of this method will allow us to estimate the difference in the level of selectivity of universities where modern students enter. The quantitative study is based on data from a large-scale survey of Russian students – Monitoring of Education Markets and Organizations.

As a result, we conclude that first-generation students perform worse on the Unified State Exam than traditional students, and this difference is statistically significant. Moreover, even with the same academic performance, first-generation students choose less selective universities. Thus, parental education is an important barrier to access to higher education, which indicates the need to develop support measures aimed at smoothing out educational inequality, increasing academic performance and representation of this cohort of students in the higher education system.

Becker, G. S. (2009). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. University of Chicago press. Coleman, J. S. (1968). Equality of educational opportunity. Integrated education, 6(5), 19-28. De Meulemeester, J. L., & Rochat, D. (1995). A causality analysis of the link between higher education and economic development. Economics of education review, 14(4), 351-361. Engle, J. (2007). Postsecondary access and success for first-generation college students. American academic, 3(1), 25-48. Gustafsson, J. E., & Yang Hansen, K. (2018). Changes in the impact of family education on student educational achievement in Sweden 1988–2014. Scandinavian journal of educational research, 62(5), 719-736. Hanushek, E. A. (2016). What matters for student achievement. Education next, 16(2), 18-26. Hanushek, E. A. (2020). Education production functions. In The economics of education (pp. 161-170). Academic Press. Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2010). Education and economic growth. Economics of education, 60(67), 1. Ives, J., & Castillo-Montoya, M. (2020). First-generation college students as academic learners: A systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 90(2), 139-178. Jongbloed, B. (2004). Tuition fees in Europe and Australasia: theory, trends and policies. In Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 241-310). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Liu, J., Peng, P., & Luo, L. (2020). The relation between family socioeconomic status and academic achievement in China: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 49-76. Marginson, S. (2010). Higher education in the global knowledge economy. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(5), 6962-6980. Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., Wolniak, G. C., & Terenzini, P. T. (2004). First-generation college students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. The journal of higher education, 75(3), 249-284. Perna, L. W. (2006). Studying college access and choice: A proposed conceptual model. In Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 99-157). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Prakhov, I. (2023). Indicators of higher education quality and salaries of university graduates in Russia. International Journal of Educational Development, 99, 102771. Prakhov, I., & Bugakova, P. (2023). Regional accessibility of higher education in Russia. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 44(3), 558-583. Prakhov, I., Kotomina, O., & Sazhina, A. (2020). Parental involvement and the educational trajectories of youth in Russia. International Journal of Educational Development, 78, 102252. Woessmann, L. (2005). Educational production in Europe. Economic policy, 20(43), 446-504.