Two Interesting Abstracts of NBER Papers

Posted on by

1. Philip J. Cook and many co-authors write,

This paper reports on a randomized controlled trial of a two-pronged intervention that provides disadvantaged youth with non-academic supports that try to teach youth social-cognitive skills based on the principles of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and intensive individualized academic remediation. The study sample consists of 106 male 9th and 10th graders in a public high school on the south side of Chicago, of whom 95% are black and 99% are free or reduced price lunch eligible. Participation increased math test scores by 0.65 of a control group standard deviation (SD) and 0.48 SD in the national distribution, increased math grades by 0.67 SD, and seems to have increased expected graduation rates by 14 percentage points (46%). While some questions remain about the intervention, given these effects and a cost per participant of around $4,400 (with a range of $3,000 to $6,000), this intervention seems to yield larger gains in adolescent outcomes per dollar spent than many other intervention strategies.

2. Daron Acemoglu and many co-authors write,

An increasingly influential “technological-discontinuity” paradigm suggests that IT-induced technological changes are rapidly raising productivity while making workers redundant. This paper explores the evidence for this view among the IT-using U.S. manufacturing industries. There is some limited support for more rapid productivity growth in IT-intensive industries depending on the exact measures, though not since the late 1990s. Most challenging to this paradigm, and our expectations, is that output contracts in IT-intensive industries relative to the rest of manufacturing. Productivity increases, when detectable, result from the even faster declines in employment.

Links to ungated versions would be appreciated.

UPDATE: Cook here, Acemoglu here.

2 thoughts on “Two Interesting Abstracts of NBER Papers”

  1. Two points about study #1 based on a note about it (or a very similar study) I saw on another blog that touted the study in question was an RFT — I can’t remember which blog:

    1. Assuming it’s the same study this was an opt-in program. There might very well be techniques for controlling for that factor in how they are evaluating the results. I don’t know. But when I read that it made me question how widely applicable the program is.

    2. Free and reduced lunch eligibility does not necessarily indicate someone is disadvantaged — especially the reduced part. In many parts of the country school districts use criteria whereby some middle-class children can end up eligible for reduced lunches. Better criteria to my mind would be items such as parental income/educational attainment, and of course, single parenthood. Would be interesting to know what metrics beside the school-lunch eligibility they used to understand the study participants and evaluate the results.

Comments are closed.