.png){kind=icon}
返回
Why Do College-Going Interventions Work?
.png){kind=icon}
OA
AI
DOI：10.1257/app.20150530.png)
.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
分享.png){kind=icon}
收藏
摘要
En 中文
We present evidence from a series of field experiments in college coaching/mentoring. We find large impacts on college attendance and persistence, but only in the treatments where we use an intensive boots-on-the-ground approach to helping students. Our treatments that provide financial incentives or information alone do not appear to be effective. For women, assignment to our mentoring treatment yields a 15 percentage point increase in the - college-going rate while treatment on the treated estimates are 30 percentage points (against a control complier mean rate of 43 percent). We find much smaller treatment effects for men, and the difference in treatment effects across genders is partially explained by the differential in - self-reported labor market opportunities. We do not find evidence that the treatment effect derives from simple behavioral mistakes, student disorganization, or a lack of easily obtained information. Instead our mentoring program appears to substitute for the potentially expensive and often missing ingredient of skilled parental or teacher time and encouragement.
Keyword:
RANDOMIZED-TRIAL
SUMMER MELT
ACHIEVEMENT
INCENTIVES
ATTAINMENT
ENROLLMENT
PROGRAM
AI总结
对已上传原文的论文进行重点信息的提取，主要内容包括：简要概述、研究摘要、背景介绍、关键亮点、图文解析、展望与总结。
期刊
A
IF:
6.2
论文数:
719
被引数:
6.8K
机构
引用论文
The Effects of High Stakes High School Achievement Awards: Evidence from a Randomized Trial.png)
AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEWOAAI
AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEWIF11.6
OAAI分享收藏
查看更多内容