← ireadpaper · 顶刊中的公共政策研究

所学专业、收入与自我选择

Field of Study, Earnings, and Self-Selection*
Quarterly Journal of Economics · 2016 · Lars J. Kirkebøen、Edwin Leuven、Magne Mogstad

中文摘要

本文考察不同类型中等后教育的劳动力市场回报,包括所学专业和就读院校。由于个体在多种教育类型之间进行选择,使用工具变量(IV)估计选择一种教育类型相对于另一种教育类型的回报尤为困难。识别不仅要求每个备选方案都有一个对应的工具变量,还必须处理选择相同教育的个体可能具有不同次优备选方案的问题。我们利用挪威中等后教育系统的丰富行政数据来应对这些困难。集中录取流程利用断点构造出可信的工具变量:这些断点使不可预测的录取分数线附近的申请者实际上被随机分配到不同院校和专业。该录取流程还通过对个体院校与专业偏好排序的防策略操纵测量,提供了有关首选和次优备选方案的信息。我们的IV方法所得结果可概括为三个主要结论。第一,即使在控制院校质量和同伴质量之后,不同专业的劳动力市场回报仍存在较大差异。第二,与所学专业带来的回报相比,就读录取选拔性更强的院校对收入的影响往往相对较小。第三,估计得到的专业回报与个体选择自身具有比较优势的专业这一行为相一致。将我们的估计结果与其他方法得到的结果进行比较,凸显了使用工具变量纠正选择性偏误,以及利用个体对院校和专业的偏好排序信息来衡量其首选和次优备选方案的重要性。

Abstract

Abstract This article examines the labor market payoffs to different types of postsecondary education, including field and institution of study. Instrumental variables (IV) estimation of the payoff to choosing one type of education compared to another is made particularly challenging by individuals choosing between several types of education. Not only does identification require one instrument per alternative, but it is also necessary to deal with the issue that individuals who choose the same education may have different next-best alternatives. We address these difficulties using rich administrative data for Norway’s postsecondary education system. A centralized admission process creates credible instruments from discontinuities that effectively randomize applicants near unpredictable admission cutoffs into different institutions and fields of study. The admission process also provides information on preferred and next-best alternatives from strategy-proof measures of individuals’ ranking of institutions and fields. The results from our IV approach may be summarized with three broad conclusions. First, different fields of study have substantially different labor market payoffs, even after accounting for institution and peer quality. Second, the effect on earnings from attending a more selective institution tends to be relatively small compared to payoffs to field of study. Third, the estimated payoffs to field of study are consistent with individuals choosing fields in which they have a comparative advantage. Comparing our estimates to those obtained from other approaches highlights the importance of using instruments to correct for selection bias and information on individuals’ ranking of institutions and fields to measure their preferred and next-best alternatives.
在 ireadpaper 查看全部 →