Cited by 163School Choice and PerformanceEducation Systems and PolicyLabor market dynamics and wage inequality

Evidence on the returns to secondary vocational education

Meer, Jonathan·2007·Economics of Education Review

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.econedurev.2006.04.002

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 37 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Meer, J.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Meer, Jonathan
Venue
Economics of Education Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-10
Volume
26
Issue
5
Pages
559-573
ISSN
0272-7757 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2004574603
Cited by
163
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 8
FWCI
11.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Economics of Education Review (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › School Choice and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education Systems and Policy
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Labor market dynamics and wage inequality
Keywords
secondary vocational education, educational tracking, returns to education, student income, selection bias, comparative advantage, high school students, National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review