Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 196

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Omitted-Ability Bias and the Increase in the Return to Schooling

Blackburn, McKinley L., Neumark, David·1993·Journal of Labor Economics

Abstract

Over the 1980s, there were sharp increases in the return to schooling estimated with conventional wage regressions. We explore whether the relationship between ability and schooling changed over this period in ways that would have increased the schooling coefficient in these regressions. Our empirical results reject the hypothesis that an increase in the bias of the schooling coefficient, due to a change in the relationship between ability and schooling, has contributed to observed increases in the return to schooling. We also find that the increase in the schooling return has occurred for workers with relatively high levels of academic ability.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/298306

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 196

Metadata

Authors
Blackburn, M. L., & Neumark, D.
Venue
Journal of Labor Economics
Published
1993-07
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
521-544
ISSN
  • 0734-306X (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5307
OpenAlex
W2060487463
Cited by
196
References
0
FWCI
11.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Omitted-Ability Bias and the Increase in the Return to Schooling. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/298306
The paper
Blackburn, M. L., & Neumark, D. (1993). Omitted-Ability Bias and the Increase in the Return to Schooling. Journal of Labor Economics. https://doi.org/10.1086/298306

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.