Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “Unintended Consequences offers deep and well-argued analyses on almost every issue.” - The New York Times
  • “…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences

Macro Roundup


Wednesday, May 1, 2019

AI Summary. A study of Louisiana's private school voucher program estimates statistically significant negative effects on student English and math achievement across most years and samples, with initial large negative impacts diminishing after the first year but persisting through the fourth. College enrollment rates for voucher students were statistically indistinguishable from the comparison group.

J. Wolf, Jonathan N. Mills, Yujie Sude, Heidi H. Erickson and Matthew L. Lee Louisiana Scholarship Program Evaluation Policy Brief School Choice Demonstration Project
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

The Louisiana Scholarship Program (LSP) has shown statistically significant negative impacts on student achievement in ELA & math across most years & samples, including the fourth year.

Do private school vouchers lower student achievement and college enrollment?

Core argument: The Louisiana Scholarship Program produced statistically significant negative impacts on English Language Arts and math achievement across most years and samples, with large initial losses diminishing by Year 2 but remaining significant through Year 4.

The Louisiana Scholarship Program (LSP) has shown statistically significant negative impacts on student achievement in English Language Arts (ELA) and math across most years and samples, including the fourth year. Initial large negative impacts diminished by Year 2 but remained significant in Year 4. The effects varied based on test alignment with public school curricula, with less negative impacts when using the iLEAP test. African American students experienced less negative impacts compared to non-African American students. Students attending larger, higher-tuition schools with longer days saw more favorable outcomes. College enrollment rates for LSP participants were similar to the control group, with a 0.5 percentage point difference that was not statistically significant. Despite lower test scores, LSP students enrolled in college at comparable rates, suggesting private schools may teach skills not measured by state tests.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. The Louisiana Scholarship Program produced statistically significant negative impacts on English Language Arts and math achievement across most years and samples, with large initial losses diminishing by Year 2 but remaining significant through Year 4.
  2. College enrollment for Louisiana Scholarship Program participants differed from the control group by 0.5 percentage points, a gap that was not statistically significant, suggesting private schools may teach skills state tests do not measure.
  3. Negative effects of the Louisiana Scholarship Program were less pronounced for African American students than non-African American students, less pronounced on the iLEAP test, and more favorable for students at larger, higher-tuition schools with longer days.

"....We determine the impact of LSP voucher use on student achievement by comparing students who received vouchers through randomized lotteries. The LSP was oversubscribed in the first year of the program and used a matching algorithm to allocate open seats in private schools to students. When LSP applicants exceeded the number of seats available in a given school, the program awarded voucher placements to that specific school by lottery. Our analysis focuses on this subset of eligible applicants whose voucher receipt was determined randomly so that any differences in outcomes between LSP awardees and non-awardees can be attributed to the program....We examine how the LSP effects vary over time for two samples of students: a sample restricted to students with baseline test scores (BA) and a larger sample that is not limited to students with baseline test scores (NBA). Our prior research indicates large negative impacts on ELA and math in the first year of participation that appear to diminish somewhat by Year 2 and are not statistically significant by Year 3. Figures 1 and 2 present regression estimates for ELA and math LSP effects for Years 1 through 4 for consistent samples of students in the study. Figure 1 presents results for students in the BA Sample and Figure 2 focuses on students in the larger and broader NBA Sample..... Overall, participating in the LSP had a statistically significant negative impact on student English Language Arts (ELA) and math scores across most years of the evaluation, including the fourth year, and across most samples of students studied.....The achievement impacts of the LSP varied significantly based on the specific criterion-referenced test used and the accountability stakes attached to it. The negative test score impacts of the LSP were half as large in Year 1 when the test taken was the iLEAP, which is less aligned to the public school curriculum, than when it was the LEAP, which is more aligned. The impacts were not statistically significant in the third year of the evaluation, when no accountability stakes were assigned to the test scores......The achievement effects of the LSP varied based on student characteristics. African American students experienced significantly less negative impacts of voucher usage after four years relative to non-African American students......The achievement effects of the LSP varied based on the characteristics of the chosen schools. Students whose most-preferred schools were larger, charged higher tuition, and had longer school days experienced more favorable achievement impacts from participating in the LSP relative to their LSP peers who did not list such schools as their first choice. In some cases, test score impacts were positive and statistically significant for students choosing schools with these characteristics.... The effects of the LSP on college enrollment rates were neutral. Students who participated in the LSP in grades 7-12 starting in the fall of 2012 enrolled in college by 2018 at a rate of 60.0 percent compared to a rate of 59.5% for members of the experimental control group. The difference of 0.5 percentage points between the two groups is not statistically significant. The results were similar for students enrolling in 2-year or 4-year colleges.....Students applying to the LSP were disproportionately African American and low-income, compared to non-applicants. No consistent evidence indicates that the LSP is “cream skimming” or “pushing out” students based on their family social status or initial test scores. However, among LSP applicants, students with disabilities are less likely than students without disabilities to use a voucher initially....Moreover, in spite of scoring lower than their control group peers, especially in math, students who participated in the LSP were accepted to and enrolled in college at a rate that was statistically similar to the students who lost their LSP placement lottery. One possible explanation for those divergent results is that private schools in the LSP are teaching students content and skills that help them get accepted to college but are not measured by the state test....."

Patrick J. Wolf, Jonathan N. Mills, Yujie Sude, Heidi H. Erickson and Matthew L. Lee, "How has the Louisiana Scholarship Program Affected Students? A Comprehensive Summary of Effects after Four Years," Louisiana Scholarship Program Evaluation Policy Brief School Choice Demonstration Project," April 24, 2019, http://www.uaedreform.org/wp-content/uploads/LSP4-Policy-Brief-SCDP.pdf

Friday, May 3, 2019

AI Summary. Analysis of a long-running U.S. youth survey finds that once selection into college is accounted for, intergenerational income mobility among college graduates is similar to that of non-graduates. The authors argue the apparent mobility advantage of a degree largely reflects selection on attributes such as ability and motivation rather than an equalizing effect of college.

Xiang Zhou American Sociological Review
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

Research by @XiangZhou suggests that higher education’s impact on mobility is driven by selection effects, not equalization. Intergenerational income mobility among college graduates is similar to non-graduates once adjusted for selection processes.

Does a college degree raise income mobility or just reflect selection?

Core argument: Analysis of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 finds that once selection is accounted for, intergenerational income mobility among college graduates is similar to that of non-graduates.

Analysis of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 reveals that intergenerational income mobility among college graduates, once adjusted for selection processes, is similar to that of non-graduates. This suggests that merely increasing the number of college graduates may not enhance mobility in the U.S. The study highlights that high mobility among degree holders often reflects selectivity based on attributes like ability and motivation, particularly from low and moderate-income families. While conditional mobility is higher for graduates, controlled mobility shows little difference between graduates and non-graduates. Selective colleges show a large but statistically insignificant equalizing effect, whereas nonselective colleges do not. The findings indicate that the perceived "college premium" in mobility is largely due to selection rather than equalization, with family income strongly correlating with characteristics that perpetuate inequality, such as race, cognitive ability, and educational expectations.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Analysis of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 finds that once selection is accounted for, intergenerational income mobility among college graduates is similar to that of non-graduates.
  2. Conditional mobility is higher for college graduates, but controlled mobility differs little between graduates and non-graduates, suggesting the mobility "college premium" largely reflects selection on attributes such as ability and motivation rather than equalization.
  3. Selective colleges show a large but statistically insignificant equalizing effect while nonselective colleges show none, and family income correlates strongly with race, cognitive ability, and educational expectations, indicating that increasing the number of graduates alone may not enhance U.S. mobility.

higher education's impact on mobility is driven by selection effects,

"....estimate the degree of intergenerational income mobility among college graduates purged of selection processes that may drive up observed mobility in this subpopulation. Analyzing data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979,I find that once selection processes are adjusted for, intergenerational income mobility among college graduates is very close to that among non-graduates.This finding suggests that expanding the pool of college graduates per se is unlikely to boost intergenerational income mobility in the United States..... In fact, to the extent that college graduates from low and moderate-income families are more selected on such individual attributes as ability and motivation than those from high-income families, the high mobility observed among bachelor’s degree holders may simply reflect varying degrees of selectivity of college graduates from different family backgrounds. This study represents my attempt to distinguish the equalization and selection effects of college. First, I formalized the selection process using the language of DAGs, and defined two measures of intergenerational mobility—conditional mobility and controlled mobility—for college graduates. While conditional mobility reflects what we observe among actual college graduates, controlled mobility reflects what we would observe if, given parental income, college graduation did not depend on other predictors of adult family income. By fixing the associations between parental income and a range of pre-college individual characteristics at their baseline levels in the general population, controlled mobility disentangles the causal effect of college from selection processes, thus directly informing the degree to which we can promote mobility by expanding the pool of college graduates. Then, I employed a novel reweighting method, called “residual balancing,” to estimate controlled mobility empirically. Using the NLSY79 data, I examined the equalization effects of both college completion in general and selective/nonselective colleges in particular. Results show that while conditional mobility is substantially higher among college graduates than non-graduates, controlled mobility differs little between the two groups. When we break down college graduates into those who attended selective institutions and those who did not, we find little evidence for an equalizing effect of nonselective colleges. Selective colleges, on the other hand, exhibit a substantively large, yet statistically insignificant, equalizing effect.Overall, our findings suggest that the “college premium” in intergenerational income mobility is largely driven by selection processes rather than an equalizing effect of a baccalaureate degree.....As shown in Figure 3, family income correlates strongly not only with other ascribed characteristics such as race, ethnicity, mother’s education, and family structure, but also with achieved characteristics such as cognitive ability and educational expectations. It is the combination of these origin-based differences that perpetuate and reproduce inequality—by shaping the type of postsecondary institutions attended, the degree of engagement in the college extracurriculum, the level of parental economic support after graduation, and patterns of marital formation and partner choice. As a result, the overall influence of parental income stays unabated among college graduates, despite the appearance of high (conditional) mobility in this subpopulation...."
Xiang Zhou, "Equalization or Selection? Reassessing the “Meritocratic Power” of a College Degree in Intergenerational Income Mobility,"American Sociological Review, April 30, 2019, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0003122419844992