Browse by Topics
- Covid-19 Education Research for Recovery
- Early childhood
- K-12 Education
- Post-secondary education
- Access and admissions
- Education outside of school (after school, summer…)
- Educator labor markets
- Educator preparation, professional development, performance and evaluation
- Finance
- Inequality
- Markets (vouchers, choice, for-profits, vendors)
- Methodology, measurement and data
- Multiple outcomes of education
- Parents and communities
- Politics, governance, philanthropy, and organizations
- Program and policy effects
- Race, ethnicity and culture
- Standards, accountability, assessment, and curriculum
- Students with Learning Differences
Breadcrumb
Search EdWorkingPapers
Elizabeth Schroeder
We design a commitment contract for college students, "Study More Tomorrow," and conduct a randomized control trial testing a model of its demand. The contract commits students to attend peer tutoring if their midterm grade falls below a pre-specified threshold. The contract carries a financial penalty for noncompliance, in contrast to other commitment devices for studying tested in the literature. We find demand for the contract, with take-up of 10% among students randomly assigned a contract offer. Contract demand is not higher among students randomly assigned to a lower contract price, plausibly because a lower contract price also means a lower commitment benefit of the contract. Students with the highest perceived utility for peer tutoring have greater demand for commitment, consistent with our model. Contrary to the model's predictions, we fail to find evidence of increased demand among present-biased students or among those with higher self-reported tendency to procrastinate. Our results show that college students are willing to pay for study commitment devices. The sources of this demand do not align fully with behavioral theories, however.
We assess whether a light-touch intervention can increase socioeconomic and racial diversity in undergraduate Economics. We randomly assigned over 2,200 students a message with basic information about the Economics major; the basic message combined with an emphasis on the rewarding careers or financial returns associated with the major; or no message. Messages increased the proportion of first generation or underrepresented minority (URM) students majoring in Economics by five percentage points. This effect size was sufficient to reverse the gap in Economics majors between first generation/URM students and students not in these groups. Effect sizes were larger and more precise for better-performing students and first generation students. Extrapolating to the full sample, the treatment would double the proportion of first generation and underrepresented minority students majoring in Economics.