本文以分量迴歸法研究國立清華大學學生於學業成就背後的原因，並以成績總排名衡量學業成就，探討不同因素對於學生學業成就表現的影響。在本文架構中，主要考慮影響學生在學業成就表現的三個面向: 個人特質、家庭背景以及高中方面。
在個人特質方面，以性別為主要解釋變數，探討性別差異對於學業成就表現之影響。在家庭背景方面，欲了解父母職業，家庭年收入以及居住地區這些變數對於學生在學業成就取得面向上的影響；高中方面，主要以入學管道為主要解釋變數，探討學生藉由不同入學管道升學後，對於其在大學的學業表現之差異。此外，在處理解釋變數中，具有內生性問題的變數，入學管道，則以Probit 兩階段最小平方法為之。
研究主要成果顯示，性別上，女生在各分量表現較男性於成績排名表現較好；家庭背景中父母職業為較高社經地位，對於學生在取得學業成就之影響不顯著，反而家庭年收入越高對於成績在中低至中高分量的學生有負向顯著影響；家庭居住位置方面以北部為基準，南、中以及東北部成績在中至中高分量的學生，於學業成就表現上有負向影響；入學管道上，考慮自我選擇內生性問題後，於中低分量，繁星與申請生相較指考生表現之差異並不顯著，而對於成績位於中至中高分量，繁星與指考生表現較為好，此部份影響甚至涵蓋到最高分量的學生。

This research focus on the determinants behind the academic success in NTHU, using a quantile regression approach, with the dependent variable being class percentile ranking. In this paper, three dimensions of the determinants are considered: Personal characteristics, family, and influences from the high school.
When it comes to personal characteristics, gender difference is the main focus. For the family part, this paper considers the influence of parents’ socioeconomic status, vocations and family income, on their children’s academic success. On the other hand, the locality of residence of the students’ family also matters. As for the influence from the high school, different channels through which the students enter NTHU are of the main interests, to understand how the decisions, made by students differently, on choosing channels to entering NTHU before college, would have any effects on the students’ road to academic success. Additionally, on the issues of possible selection bias in choosing different channels entering NTHU, the method so called Probit Two Stage Least Squares is adopted.
The empirical results suggest that females outperform males over all the quantiles considered in this paper; higher family socioeconomic status does not necessarily associate with better performance in NTHU. On the contrary, higher family income actually suggests lower achievements in academic performance for students from the middle-lower to upper quantiles; negative impacts on students from the south, mid, and northeast part of Taiwan are found, in the middle to upper quantiles, with the north as the basement group; After the consideration of endogeneity problem, self-selection bias, no statistical differences are found for students in the lower quantiles; while in the middle and upper quantiles, the students through application and star-programs tend to outperform those taking the advanced-subject tests, which affects even on the top quantile students.

目錄
1 緒論 1
2 學業成就簡介 4
3 文獻回顧 5
4 資料概要 9
4.1 資料來源與簡介 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2 變數處理. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
4.3 敘述統計分析. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5 實證模型與方法 13
5.1 模型設定 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
5.2 分量迴歸法 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.3 Probit 兩階段最小平方法 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
6 實證結果與討論 20
7 結論與相關建議 25
中文參考文獻 27
英文參考文獻 28
附錄 31

一、中文參考文獻
1. 田芳華、傅祖壇(2009)：「大學多元入學制度：學生家庭社經背景與學業成就
之比較」，《教育科學研究期刊》，54(1)，209-233。
2. 李維倫、古慧雯、駱明慶與林明仁(2020)：「入學管道與學習表現」，《經濟論
文叢刊》，48(1)，31-76。
3. 林俊瑩、黃毅志(2008)：「影響臺灣地區學生學業成就的可能機制：結構方程
模式的探究」，《臺灣教育社會學研究》，8(1)，45-88。
4. 孫清山、黃毅志(1996)：「補習教育、文化資本與教育取得」，《臺灣社會學
刊》，(19)，95-139。
5. 陶宏麟、吳澤玫(2018)：「從效率與公平評估臺灣的大學入學制度改革」，《人
文及社會科學集刊》，31(3)，385-426。
6. 張凱婷(2011)：「大學生家庭背景、入學特質、校園經驗與學習成果之研究」，
國立臺灣師範大學公民教育與活動領導學系碩士論文。
7. 張簡郁婷(2017)：「多元入學管道與在校成績之關係，以國立中央大學為例」，
國立中央大學經濟學系碩士論文。
8. 駱明慶(2002)：「誰是台大學生？－性別、省籍與城鄉差異」，《經濟論文叢
刊》，30(1)，113-147。

二、英文參考文獻
1. Bassett Jr, G. W., Tam, M. Y. S., & Knight, K. (2002): “Quantile models and estimators for data analysis,”Metrika, 55, 17-26.
2. Birch, E. R., & Miller, P. W. (2006): “Student outcomes at university in Australia: A quantile regression approach,” Australian Economic Papers,5(1), 1-17.
3. Buchinsky, M. (1998): “Recent advances in quantile regression models: A practical guideline for empirical research,” Journal of Human Resources, 88– 126.
4. Chen, S. T., Kuo, H. I., & Chen, C. C. (2012): “Estimating the extreme behaviors of students performance using quantile regression–evidences from Taiwan, ”Education Economics, 20(1), 93-113.
5. Costa, R. P., Vieira, C., & Vieira, I. (2017): “How far is too far? An analysis of students’perceptions of the impact of distance between university and family home on academic performance, ”European Review Of Applied Sociology, 10(15), 28-40.
6. Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. (2006): “Self-discipline gives girls the edge: Gender in self-discipline, grades, and achievement test scores,”Journal of educational psychology, 98(1), 198.
7. Dunteman, G. H. (1994): “Principal Component Analysis (PCA),”Factor Analysis and Related Techniques.
8. Eide, E., & Showalter, M. H. (1998): “The effect of school quality on student performance: A quantile regression approach, ” Economics Letters, 58(3), 345-350.
9. Farooq, M. S., Chaudhry, A. H., Shafiq, M., & Berhanu, G. (2011): “Factors
affecting students’quality of academic performance: a case of secondary school level, ”Journal of quality and technology management, 7(2), 1-14.
10. Garza, A. N., & Fullerton, A. S. (2018): “Staying close or going away: How distance to college impacts the educational attainment and academic performance of first-generation college students, ”Sociological Perspectives, 61(1), 164-185.
11. Gist, W. E., Goedde, H., & Ward, B. H. (1996): “The influence of mathematical skills and other factors on minoritystudent performance in principles of accounting,”Issues in Accounting Education, 11(1), 49.
12. Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (1996): “Evaluating the effect of teacher degree level on educational performance. ”
13. Goni, U. (2015): “Gender Difference in Students’ Academic Performance in Colleges of Education in Borno State, Nigeria: Implications for Counselling, ”Journal of Education and Practice, 6(32), 107-114.
14. Heckman, J. J. (1979): “Sample selection bias as a specification error, ”Econometrica: Journal of the econometric society, 153-161.
15. Jackman, W. M., Morrain-Webb, J., & Fuller, C. (2019): “Exploring gender differences in achievement through student voice: Critical insights and analyses, ”Cogent Education, 6(1), 1567895.
16. Koenker, R., & Bassett Jr, G. (1978): “Regression quantiles,” Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 33-50.
17. Kupczynski, L., Brown, M., Holland, G., & Uriegas, B. (2014): “The Relationship between Gender and Academic Success Online, ”Journal of Educators Online, 11(1), n1.
18. Lumley, S., Ward, P., Roberts, L., & Mann, J. P. (2015): “Self-reported extracurricular activity, academic success, and quality of life in UK medical students, ”International journal of medical education, 6, 111.
19. Machebe, C. H., Ezegbe, B. N., & Onuoha, J. (2017): “The Impact of Parental Level of Income on Students’ Academic Performance in High School in Japan, ”Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(9), 1614-1620.
20. Majzub, R. M., & Rais, M. M. (2010): “Boys’underachievement: male versus female teachers, ”Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 7, 685-690.
21. Marcenaro–Gutierrez, O., Lopez–Agudo, L. A., & Ropero-García, M. A. (2018): “Gender differences in adolescents’academic achievement, ”Young, 26(3), 250-270.
22. Morris, E. (2019): “Participation in Extracurricular Activities and Academic Achievement: A Comprehensive Review.”
23. Muluk, S. (2017): “Part-Time Job and Students’Academic Achievement, ”Jurnal Ilmiah Peuradeun, 5(3), 361-372.
24. Rodríguez-Hernández, C. F., Cascallar, E., & Kyndt, E. (2020): “Socio-economic status and academic performance in higher education: A systematic review, ”Educational Research Review, 29, 100305.
25. Stevans, L. K., & Sessions, D. N. (2000): “Private/public school choice and student performance revisited, ”Education Economics, 8(2), 169-184.
26. Tessema, M. T., Ready, K. J., & Astani, M. (2014): “Does part-time job affect college students’ satisfaction and academic performance (GPA)? The case of a mid-sized public university, ”International Journal of Business Administration, 5(2), 50.
27. Wilson, N. (2009): “Impact of extracurricular activities on students.”