Quarterly Journal of Economics · 2019 · Lucas C. Coffman、John J. Conlon、Clayton R. Featherstone、Judd B. Kessler
中文摘要
获得几百美元的流动性是否会影响应届大学毕业生的职业选择？在一项与“为美国而教”（TFA，一个颇具声望的教师安置项目）合作开展、为期三年的田野实验中，我们随机提高了向近7,300名申请教学过渡资金支持的潜在教师所提供的财务方案。实验的前两年显示，尽管大多数申请者对边际600美元的助学金或贷款没有反应，但财务状况最差者会以更高比例加入TFA。我们将实验延续到第三年，并对结果进行了自我复制。对于需求最高的申请者，额外600美元贷款、600美元助学金和1,200美元助学金分别使加入TFA的可能性提高12.2、11.4和17.1个百分点（即20.0%、18.7%和28.1%）。额外的助学金和贷款金额效果相同，表明存在流动性机制。一项后续调查进一步支持了流动性解释，并显示那些被吸引从事教学的人原本会在私营部门企业工作。
Abstract
Abstract Can access to a few hundred dollars of liquidity affect the career choice of a recent college graduate? In a three-year field experiment with Teach For America (TFA), a prestigious teacher placement program, we randomly increase the financial packages offered to nearly 7,300 potential teachers who requested support for the transition into teaching. The first two years of the experiment reveal that although most applicants do not respond to a marginal $600 of grants or loans, those in the worst financial position respond by joining TFA at higher rates. We continue the experiment into the third year and self-replicate our results. For the highest-need applicants, an extra $600 in loans, $600 in grants, and $1,200 in grants increase the likelihood of joining TFA by 12.2, 11.4, and 17.1 percentage points (or 20.0%, 18.7%, and 28.1%), respectively. Additional grant and loan dollars are equally effective, suggesting a liquidity mechanism. A follow-up survey bolsters the liquidity story and also shows that those drawn into teaching would have otherwise worked in private-sector firms.