Jan Feld

Bio: Jan Feld is an academic researcher from Victoria University of Wellington. The author has contributed to research in topics: Random assignment & Wage. The author has an hindex of 8, co-authored 26 publications receiving 348 citations. Previous affiliations of Jan Feld include University of Gothenburg.

Understanding Peer Effects: On the Nature, Estimation and Channels of Peer Effects

Abstract: This paper provides evidence on ability peer effects in university education. Identification comes from the random assignment of students to sections. We find that students on average benefit from better-ability peers. Low-ability students, however, are harmed by high-ability peers. We introduce a placebo analysis that provides a simple test to quantify the estimation bias driven by the mechanisms described in Angrist (2013). In our setting, the bias is small and does not drive our results. Analyzing students’ course evaluations suggests that peer effects are driven by improved student interaction rather than adjustments in teachers’ behavior or students’ effort.

Understanding Peer Effects: On the Nature, Estimation and Channels of Peer Effects

Abstract: This paper estimates peer effects in a university context where students are randomly assigned to sections. While students benefit from better peers on average, low-achieving students are harmed by high-achieving peers. Analyzing students’ course evaluations suggests that peer effects are driven by improved group interaction rather than adjustments in teachers’ behavior or students' effort. We further show, building on Angrist (2014), that classical measurement error in a setting where group assignment is systematic can lead to substantial overestimation of peer effects. With random assignment, as is the case in our setting, estimates are only attenuated.

Endophilia or exophobia: beyond discrimination

Abstract: The immense literature on discrimination treats outcomes as relative: One group suffers compared to another. But does a difference arise because agents discriminate against others – are exophobic – or because they favor their own kind – are endophilic? This difference matters, as the relative importance of the types of discrimination and their inter-relation affect market outcomes. Using a field experiment in which graders at one university were randomly assigned students' exams that did or did not contain the students' names, on average we find favoritism but no discrimination by nationality, and neither favoritism nor discrimination by gender, findings that are robust to a wide variety of potential concerns. We observe heterogeneity in both discrimination and favoritism by nationality and by gender in the distributions of graders' preferences. We show that a changing correlation between endophilia and exophobia can generate perverse predictions for observed market discrimination.

The Effect of Peer Gender on Major Choice in Business School

Abstract: Business degrees are popular and lead to high earnings Female business graduates, however, earn less than their male counterparts These gender differences can be traced back to university, where women shy away from majors like finance that lead to high earnings In this paper, we investigate how the gender composition of peers in business school affects women's and men's major choices and labor market outcomes We find that women who are randomly assigned to teaching sections with more female peers become less likely to choose male-dominated majors like finance and more likely to choose female-dominated majors like marketing After graduation, these women end up in jobs where their earnings grow more slowly Men, on the other hand, become more likely to choose male-dominated majors and less likely to choose female-dominated majors when they had more female peers in business school However, men's labor market outcomes are not significantly affected Taken together, our results show that studying with more female peers in business school increases gender segregation in educational choice and affects labor market outcomes

Education at a Glance

Abstract: A detailed review of the education sector in Australia as in the data provided by the 2006 edition of the OECD's annual publication, 'Education at a Glance' is presented. While the data has shown that in almost all OECD countries educational attainment levels are on the rise, with countries showing impressive gains in university qualifications, it also reveals that a large of share of young people still do not complete secondary school, which remains a baseline for successful entry into the labour market.

Replication data for: Peer Effects, Teacher Incentives, and the Impact of Tracking: Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation in Kenya

Abstract: To the extent that students benefit from high-achieving peers, tracking will help strong students and hurt weak ones. However, all students may benefit if tracking allows teachers to present material at a more appropriate level. Lower-achieving pupils are particularly likely to benefit from tracking if teachers would otherwise have incentives to teach to the top of the distribution. We propose a simple model nesting these effects. We compare 61 Kenyan schools in which students were randomly assigned to a first grade class with 60 in which students were assigned based on initial achievement. In non-tracking schools, students randomly assigned to academically stronger peers scored higher, consistent with a positive direct effect of academically strong peers. However, compared to their counterparts in non-tracking schools, students in tracking schools scored 0.14 standard deviations higher after 18 months, and this effect persisted one year after the program ended. Furthermore, students at all levels of the distribution benefited from tracking. Students near the median of the pre-test distribution benefited similarly whether assigned to the lower or upper section. A natural interpretation is that the direct effect of high-achieving peers is positive, but that tracking benefited lower-achieving pupils indirectly by allowing teachers to teach at a level more appropriate to them.

Grade expectations : Rationality and overconfidence

Abstract: Confidence and overconfidence are essential aspects of human nature, but measuring (over)confidence is not easy. Our approach is to consider students' forecasts of their exam grades. Part of a student's grade expectation is based on the student's previous academic achievements; what remains can be interpreted as (over)confidence. Our results are based on a sample of about 500 second-year undergraduate students enrolled in a statistics course in Moscow. The course contains three exams and each student produces a forecast for each of the three exams. Our models allow us to estimate overconfidence quantitatively. Using these models we find that students' expectations are not rational and that most students are overconfident, in agreement with the general literature. Less obvious is that overconfidence helps: given the same academic achievement students with larger confidence obtain higher exam grades. Female students are less overconfident than male students, their forecasts are more rational, and they are also faster learners in the sense that they adjust their expectations more rapidly.