Research
Research
Lifting the Cap on Non-Resident University Enrollment: Evidence from Wisconsin (with Natalia Orlova and Justin C. Wiltshire) conditionally accepted at Empirical Economics, (online appendix)
Media coverage: Inside Higher Ed, Higher Ed Dive
Putting the K in Rank: How Kindergarten Cohorts Impact Short and Long-Run Educational Outcomes Applied Economics 2025 (online appendix)
Working paper version
The Economic Impact of Migrants from Hurricane Maria NBER Working Paper # 27718 (with Giovanni Peri and Justin C. Wiltshire), Journal of Human Resources November 2024. Vol. 59 No. 6
Media coverage: Vox's "The Weeds" Podcast, Brookings Institution, Orlando Sentinel, NBER Digest, Good on Paper Podcast (The Atlantic)
Working paper version
Boosting Parent-Child Math Engagement and Preschool Children’s Math Skills: Evidence from an RCT with Low-Income Families, (with Susan Mayer, Ariel Kalil, William Delgado, Haoxan Liu and Rohen Shah) Economics of Education Review, Volume 95, 2023
Working paper version
Knowing What it Takes: The Effect of Information About Returns To Studying on Study Effort and Achievement, (with Scott Carrell) Economics of Education Review, Volume 94, 2023
Working paper version
How Information Avoidance Impacts Human Capital: Evidence from a Field Experiment (with Alessandro Castagnetti) (Reject and Resubmit, European Economic Review)
Research in psychology and economics finds that agents suffer from information avoidance when that information is ego-relevant. To study whether performance feedback in a classroom setting contains ego-relevant information, we administer a survey in an introductory economics class in which we elicit students' willingness to pay for or avoid learning their rank on a midterm exam. We find that 10% of students are willing to pay to avoid learning their rank. We also find that female students have a $1.00 higher WTP than men. Upon learning their rank, students report needing more study hours to achieve their desired grade and being less likely to be in the top half of the ability distribution in the class. These effects are driven by students' ex-ante beliefs about their rank. We find similar results when looking at overall performance - positive effects for those who receive bad news and negative effects for those who receive good news - highlighting the usefulness of performance feedback for those who overestimate their performance. Lastly, we argue that information avoidance comes at a high cost for those who overestimate their performance.
A Digital Library for Parent-Child Shared Reading Improves Literacy Skills for Young Disadvantaged Children (with Ariel Kalil, Susan Mayer, Noah Liu, and Rohen Shah) (Revise and Resubmit, European Economic Review)
Abstract: The gap in reading skills between low-income children and their higher income peers emerges very early in life. To address this, we implemented an 11-month randomized control trial evaluation of Children and Parents Engaged in Reading (CAPER), a program that lent low-income parents of preschool aged children an electronic tablet with over 200 books. We found that receiving a tablet increased literacy skills measured 45 weeks after the program began by a fifth of a standard deviation. We also used a messaging intervention meant to address potential behavioral barriers to parental engagement in reading. We found that our behavioral messaging led to no better performance than receiving the tablet-alone and in some cases had a negative impact on literacy skills. Results from our follow-up survey show that our behavioral messaging reduced parental motivation to read and failed to reduce important barriers to reading compared to the tablet-only treatment. These results suggest that there may be hidden costs to nudging interventions aimed at increasing desired behavior, particularly when that behavior has follow-on impacts on other important outcomes.
Media Coverage: The Pie podcast
Tightening the Leaky Pipeline(s): The Role of Beliefs about Ability in STEM Major Choice
Abstract: Often referred to as the STEM ``leaky pipeline", empirical work shows that STEM students are more likely to switch to a different major or drop out compared to students of other fields. Previous research shows that this may be due to students beginning college with incorrect beliefs about their ability to complete a STEM degree. I explore this via a field experiment where I provide students with information that they are above average in their top fields of study. I then measure the effect of this information on STEM major choice. I find that STEM students are indeed more likely to switch out of their major compared to students of other fields. I also document a leaky pipeline into STEM, as non-STEM students fail to switch into STEM at the same rates as other fields. In my experimental results, I find that learning you are above average in your top field of study increases STEM major choice by almost a third, as STEM students appear more like to persist and non-STEM students increase their switching into STEM fields, particularly those who underestimated the ability of their non-STEM peers. Lastly, I show that these results are strongest for first-generation students.
Major Disappointment: A Large-Scale Experiment on (Non-)Pecuniary Information and Major Choice (with Scott Carrell and Lester Lusher)
Abstract: Studies suggest providing information to undergraduate students can influence their preference of major. To test the scalability of information treatments on actual major decisions, we conducted several large-scale field experiments across over 13,000 undergraduate students. Three treatment arms separately provided pecuniary, major satisfaction, and job-relatedness information. Despite nearly half of freshmen switching their major at some point during their undergraduate tenure, we find that our information treatments had no impact on major choice. These results hold for various subsamples, outcomes, and specifications. Our results suggest caution on the promise of information provision influencing major choice
Talking About Words Boosts Preschool-Age Children's Vocabulary: Evidence from a Parental Intervention (with Ariel Kalil, Susan Mayer and Daniela Bresciani) Under Review Online Appendix
Media coverage: Becker-Friedman Institute (BFI) ; AI Podcast (12 mins)
Abstract: Observational research shows that more parental talk with a child is positively correlated with the child’s vocabulary and language skills. To test whether this relationship is causal, we designed and implemented a program called “Chat2Learn” to boost preschool-aged children’s vocabulary with prompts designed to spark talk between parents and their child. Using text messages, Chat2Learn sent three prompts per week for six months to a sample of nearly 600 socioeconomically diverse parents in the United States. In one treatment arm, parents were randomly assigned to receive prompts to define a word for their child. In the other treatment arm, parents were prompted to define the word plus ask the child an open-ended question using that word. Both types of talking prompts significantly increased children’s vocabulary (effect sizes of .37 and .23, respectively). The word definition treatment also marginally increased children’s novelty preference (a measure of curiosity). It also significantly reduced the strength of parents’ beliefs in a fixed mindset, a finding that challenges the idea that parenting interventions must “teach” parents to change their beliefs before behavior can change. The impacts on children’s vocabulary from Chat2Learn are larger and less costly than other targeted parent training programs designed to boost child vocabulary.
Closing the Gender Gap in STEM: Role of Performance Feedback and Advice (with Fulya Ersoy)
Abstract: Women remain underrepresented in STEM occupations, largely due to educational choices. This study investigates two interventions—performance feedback and advice—aimed at narrowing the gender gap in selecting math tasks over verbal tasks. In an online lab experiment, participants chose between completing a math task or a
verbal task. Before making their choice, they received either performance feedback on previous tasks, advice on which task to choose, or both, with advisor gender varied.
Although a significant gender gap in math task choice was observed in the control group, performance feedback was sufficient to close this gap. Receiving Math advice
increased the proportion choosing the math task without significantly reducing the gender gap. The advisor’s gender had no significant effect on the outcome. This study
contributes to understanding the roles of feedback and advice in educational decisions, highlighting the complexity of these interventions.
Implicit Self-Gender Stereotypes and STEM Major Choice (with Stephanie Owen)
Abstract: Implicit stereotypes about gender and STEM may unconsciously shape students' academic choices and contribute to gender gaps in major choice, but there is limited economic evidence on this channel. To study this relationship, we administer a gender-science Implicit Association Test (IAT) to a sample of primarily first-semester undergraduates, and link results to original survey data and administrative transcript data. On average, students in our sample implicitly associate men with STEM and women with humanities, with no differences by student gender. Our key finding is that implicit stereotypes are strongly predictive of behavior. Male students with a one standard deviation higher male-science association are 7-9 ppt more likely to intend to major in STEM, while female students are 8-10 ppt less likely. We find similar relationships between implicit stereotypes and observed STEM course-taking and officially declared major. These patterns are robust to controls for expected earnings, preferences for major characteristics such as salary and job flexibility, presence of female role models, and explicit beliefs about women in STEM and humanities. Our results suggest that implicit stereotypes may be a promising focus for interventions targeting gender gaps.
Immigrant Peers and the Short and Long-Run Outcomes of US-Born Students (with Briana Ballis and Christina Sun)
Immigrant Peers and Students' Political Outcomes (with Briana Ballis and Christina Sun)
Information about Children's Academic Performance and Parental Educational Investments (with Ariel Kalil)
Friday Night Lights, Monday Morning Grades: How High School Football Success Affects Student Achievement (with Evan Bennet, Gagandeep Sachdeva and Sofia Shchukina)