« Back to Results
Atlanta Marriott Marquis, L508
Hosted By:
American Economic Association
This paper addresses these issues in two ways. First, I document the bias that only having in-state data has on estimates, and how this bias changes over the early career of a graduate, as well as how it differs by field of study and the business cycle. Second, I propose a method based on my bias results, which would allow researchers to bound the size of the effect in their specific setting. I find that bias in earnings differs substantially by field of study, and grows over time. I find weak evidence that the bias is larger during boom periods, but these results are much more noisy
Postsecondary Education and Labor Market
Paper Session
Saturday, Jan. 5, 2019 2:30 PM - 4:30 PM
- Chair: Michael F. Lovenheim, Cornell University
You’re Going to Miss Me When I’m Gone: Assessing the Bias from Only Using In-State Earnings
Abstract
Recent research into the effect of post-secondary education on employment outcomes has used administrative data from institutions matched with in-state earnings data. (Engbom and Moser, 2017; Andrews, Li and Lovenheim, 2016; Altonji and Zimmerman, 2017) However, none of these papers have the ability to follow workers outside of the state, which biases measured earnings. While most of these papers acknowledge the issue, they are unable to bound the effect that this non-random attrition has on their results. In addition to these academic papers, a number of states have produced estimates of earnings of graduates matched to in-state earnings data, and are similarly unable to measure workers who move out of the state.This paper addresses these issues in two ways. First, I document the bias that only having in-state data has on estimates, and how this bias changes over the early career of a graduate, as well as how it differs by field of study and the business cycle. Second, I propose a method based on my bias results, which would allow researchers to bound the size of the effect in their specific setting. I find that bias in earnings differs substantially by field of study, and grows over time. I find weak evidence that the bias is larger during boom periods, but these results are much more noisy
Closing the Gap: The Effect of a Targeted, Tuition-Free Promise on College Choices of High-Achieving, Low-Income Students
Abstract
Low-income students are unlikely to attend a highly selective college even when they have strong academic credentials. Changing this has the potential to improve college graduation rates and reduce income inequality. With a field experiment, we test an intervention intended to increase the enrollment of low-income students at the highly selective University of Michigan. We contact students (as well as their parents and principals) with an encouragement to apply along with a promise of four years of free tuition and fees upon admission. Materials emphasize that this offer is not contingent on completing aid applications (e.g., the FAFSA or PROFILE). Nearly all admitted students eventually completed aid applications and qualified for more than the promised tuition waiver. Treated students were more than twice as likely to apply to (67 percent vs. 26 percent) and enroll at (27 percent vs. 12 percent) University of Michigan. There was no diversion from schools as (or more) selective as UM; the enrollment effect of 15 percentage points (pp) comprises students who would otherwise attend a less selective four-year college (7 pp), a community college (4 pp), or no college (4 pp). Enrollment effects persist through two years of follow-up. The intervention closed by half the income gaps in college attendance and selectivity among Michigan's high-achieving students. We conclude that an encouragement to apply, paired with an upfront promise of aid, when communicated to both students and influential adults, can substantially reduce socioeconomic differences in college choices.Do Postsecondary Training Programs Respond to Changes in the Labor Market?
Abstract
Given dramatic long-term changes in the occupational structure of the labor market in recent decades, it is important to understand whether postsecondary training programs have followed suit. Using administrative records from the nation's largest community college system, I first compare trends in the distribution of degrees and certificates to trends in employment. I then estimate that an occupation whose share of employment grows by one percentage point has its share of community college completions grow by 0.47 percentage points. I show that this relationship is primarily due to increases in student demand rather than to colleges expanding their capacity.Discussant(s)
Lesley Turner
,
University of Maryland
Andrew Barr
,
Texas A&M University
Benjamin M. Marx
,
University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign
Jillian Carr
,
Purdue University
JEL Classifications
- I2 - Education and Research Institutions
- J6 - Mobility, Unemployment, Vacancies, and Immigrant Workers