Tables and Figures. This draft, July 2, 2007

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Tables and Figures. This draft, July 2, 2007"

Shana Blankenship
5 years ago
Views:

1 and Figures This draft, July 2, / 16

2 Figures 2 / 16

3 Figure 1: Density of Estimated Propensity Score Pr(D=1) % Treated Group Untreated Group 30 f (P) ~.10.11~.20.21~.30.31~.40.41~.50.51~.60.61~.70.71~.80.81~.90.91~.99 P Figure 1. Density of Estimated Propensity Score Pr ( D = 1) 3 / 16

4 Figure 2: Marginal Treatment Effect as a Function of Unobserved Heterogeneity U D MTE U D 4 / 16

5 Figure 3: Weights of Treatment Parameters Figure 2. Marginal Treatment Effect as a Function of Unobserved Heterogeneity U D U D TT TUT ATE Weight U D Figure 3. Weights of Treatment Parameters 5 / 16

6 Figure 4: Gender-specific MTE and Weights as a Function of Unobserved Heterogeneity U D 0.5 Male 0.7 Female 0.4 MTE MTE U D U D TT TUT ATE TT TUT ATE Weight 3.0 Weight U D U D 6 / 16

7 7 / 16

8 Table 1: Variables and Descriptive Statistics Total Treated Group Untreated Group (N = 1,439) (N = 406) (N = 1,033) Independent Variables Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD 4 years college attendee ( = 1, if yes) Monthly earnings 37,887 24,134 45,000 25,225 35,092 23,112 Log of earnings Mincer experience (= Age - years of schooling - 6) Male ( = 1, if yes) Parental education Father s years of schooling Mother s years of schooling / 16

9 Table 1 continued Total Treated Group Untreated Group (N = 1,439) (N = 406) (N = 1,033) Independent Variables Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Ethnicity Hokkien ( = 1, if yes) Hakka ( = 1, if yes) Mainlander ( = 1, if yes) Aborigine ( = 1, if yes) Residence prior to age 15 Major city ( = 1, if yes) Not major city ( = 1, if yes) Not in Taiwan ( = 1, if yes) Missing data ( = 1, if yes) / 16

10 Table 1 continued Total Treated Group Untreated Group (N = 1,439) (N = 406) (N = 1,033) Independent Variables Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Birth cohort 1967 ( = 1, if yes) ( = 1, if yes) ( = 1, if yes) ( = 1, if yes) ( = 1, if yes) ( = 1, if yes) ( = 1, if yes) ( = 1, if yes) ( = 1, if yes) ( = 1, if yes) ( = 1, if yes) ( = 1, if yes) / 16

11 Table 2: Estimated Probit Model for College Attainment (N = 1,439) Independent Variables Coefficient SE Mean Marginal Effect Intercept *.345 Parental education Father s schooling.072* Mother s schooling Gender (relative to female) Male Ethnicity (relative to Hokkien) Hakka Mainlander Aborigine Residence prior to age 15 (relative to not in major city) Major city Not in Taiwan Missing data * p <.05 (two-tailed tests). 11 / 16

12 Table 2 continued Independent Variables Coefficient SE Mean Marginal Effect Birth cohort (relative to 1967) * p <.05 (two-tailed tests). 12 / 16

13 Table 2 continued Independent Variables Coefficient SE Mean Marginal Effect Two-way interaction terms Father s schooling * Mother s schooling Father s schooling * Gender * Hakka -.093* * Mainlander * Major city Mother s schooling * Gender * Hakka.093* * Mainlander.130* * Major city Gender * Major city -.386* * Hakka * Mainlander Hakka * Major City Mainlander * Major City * p <.05 (two-tailed tests). 13 / 16

14 Table 3: OLS Regressions Predicting Logged Earnings Independent Variables Total Male Female Intercept (.044) (.062) (.056) 4 year s college attendee (.029) (.044) (.038) Mincer experience (.004) (.005) (.005) Experience squared (.001) (.001) (.001) Male(=1, if yes).242 (.023) R N 1, Significant at the level of α =.05; Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. 14 / 16

15 Table 4: Estimated Coefficients Using Local Linear Regression with Gaussian Kernel and Optimal Bandwidth High School College vs. High School Independent Variables (γ 0 ) (γ 1 γ 0 ) 1. Total (N=1,439) Mincer experience Experience squared (.002) (.006) Male (=1, if yes) (.046) (.137) 2. Male (N=789) Mincer experience (.011) (.040) Experience squared (.003) (.007) 3. Female (N=650) Mincer Experience (.010) (.035) Experience squared (.002) (.008) Significant at the level of α =.05; Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. 15 / 16

16 Comparisons of Different Treatment Parameters Total Male Female Parameter (N=1,439) (N=789) (N=650) Significant at the level of α =.05; Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. 16 / 16

17 Comparisons of Different Treatment Parameters Total Male Female Parameter (N=1,439) (N=789) (N=650) 1. OLS (.029) (.044) (.038) Significant at the level of α =.05; Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. 16 / 16

18 Comparisons of Different Treatment Parameters Total Male Female Parameter (N=1,439) (N=789) (N=650) 1. OLS (.029) (.044) (.038) 2. IV (.092) (.142) (.136) Significant at the level of α =.05; Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. 16 / 16

19 Comparisons of Different Treatment Parameters Total Male Female Parameter (N=1,439) (N=789) (N=650) 1. OLS (.029) (.044) (.038) 2. IV (.092) (.142) (.136) 3. ATE (.180) (.144) (.144) Significant at the level of α =.05; Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. 16 / 16

20 Comparisons of Different Treatment Parameters Total Male Female Parameter (N=1,439) (N=789) (N=650) 1. OLS (.029) (.044) (.038) 2. IV (.092) (.142) (.136) 3. ATE (.180) (.144) (.144) 4. TT (.226) (.156) (.167) Significant at the level of α =.05; Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. 16 / 16

21 Comparisons of Different Treatment Parameters Total Male Female Parameter (N=1,439) (N=789) (N=650) 1. OLS (.029) (.044) (.038) 2. IV (.092) (.142) (.136) 3. ATE (.180) (.144) (.144) 4. TT (.226) (.156) (.167) 5. TUT (.233) (.162) (.163) Significant at the level of α =.05; Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. 16 / 16

22 Comparisons of Different Treatment Parameters Total Male Female Parameter (N=1,439) (N=789) (N=650) 1. OLS (.029) (.044) (.038) 2. IV (.092) (.142) (.136) 3. ATE (.180) (.144) (.144) 4. TT (.226) (.156) (.167) 5. TUT (.233) (.162) (.163) 6. Bias = OLS - ATE Significant at the level of α =.05; Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. 16 / 16

23 Comparisons of Different Treatment Parameters Total Male Female Parameter (N=1,439) (N=789) (N=650) 1. OLS (.029) (.044) (.038) 2. IV (.092) (.142) (.136) 3. ATE (.180) (.144) (.144) 4. TT (.226) (.156) (.167) 5. TUT (.233) (.162) (.163) 6. Bias = OLS - ATE Selection bias = OLS - TT Significant at the level of α =.05; Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. 16 / 16

24 Comparisons of Different Treatment Parameters Total Male Female Parameter (N=1,439) (N=789) (N=650) 1. OLS (.029) (.044) (.038) 2. IV (.092) (.142) (.136) 3. ATE (.180) (.144) (.144) 4. TT (.226) (.156) (.167) 5. TUT (.233) (.162) (.163) 6. Bias = OLS - ATE Selection bias = OLS - TT Sorting gain = TT - ATE Significant at the level of α =.05; Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. 16 / 16

The College Premium in the Eighties: Returns to College or Returns to Ability

The College Premium in the Eighties: Returns to College or Returns to Ability Christopher Taber March 4, 2008 The problem of Ability Bias were A i is ability Y i = X i β + αs i + A i + u i If A i is correlated