Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 568

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Field of Study, Earnings, and Self-Selection*

Open access
Kirkeboen, Lars J., Leuven, Edwin, Mogstad, Magne·2016·The Quarterly Journal of Economics
DOI 10.1093/qje/qjw019
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article examines the labor market payoffs to different types of postsecondary education, including field and institution of study. Instrumental variables (IV) estimation of the payoff to choosing one type of education compared to another is made particularly challenging by individuals choosing between several types of education. Not only does identification require one instrument per alternative, but it is also necessary to deal with the issue that individuals who choose the same education may have different next-best alternatives. We address these difficulties using rich administrative data for Norway’s postsecondary education system. A centralized admission process creates credible instruments from discontinuities that effectively randomize applicants near unpredictable admission cutoffs into different institutions and fields of study. The admission process also provides information on preferred and next-best alternatives from strategy-proof measures of individuals’ ranking of institutions and fields. The results from our IV approach may be summarized with three broad conclusions. First, different fields of study have substantially different labor market payoffs, even after accounting for institution and peer quality. Second, the effect on earnings from attending a more selective institution tends to be relatively small compared to payoffs to field of study. Third, the estimated payoffs to field of study are consistent with individuals choosing fields in which they have a comparative advantage. Comparing our estimates to those obtained from other approaches highlights the importance of using instruments to correct for selection bias and information on individuals’ ranking of institutions and fields to measure their preferred and next-best alternatives.

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 · 10.1093/qje/qjw019

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. Abadie, 2002, “Bootstrap Tests for Distributional Treatment Effects in Instrumental Variable Models,”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 97, 284, 10.1198/016214502753479419 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Altonji, 1993, “The Demand for and Return to Education When Education Outcomes Are Uncertain,”, Journal of Labor Economics, 11, 48, 10.1086/298317 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Altonji, 2012, “Heterogeneity in Human Capital Investments: High School Curriculum, College Major, and Careers,”, Annual Review of Economics, 4, 185, 10.1146/annurev-economics-080511-110908 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Arcidiacono, 2004, “Ability Sorting and the Returns to College Major,”, Journal of Econometrics, 121, 343, 10.1016/j.jeconom.2003.10.010 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Bertrand, 2010, “Affirmative Action in Education: Evidence from Engineering College Admissions in India,”, Journal of Public Economics, 94, 16, 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2009.11.003 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Black, 2004, “How Robust Is the Evidence on the Effects of College Quality? Evidence from Matching,”, Journal of Econometrics, 121, 99, 10.1016/j.jeconom.2003.10.006 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Cunha, 2007, “Identifying and Estimating the Distributions of Ex Post and Ex Ante Returns to Schooling,”, Labour Economics, 14, 870, 10.1016/j.labeco.2007.06.002 · DOI
  8. Cunha, 2005, “Separating Uncertainty from Heterogeneity in Life Cycle Earnings,”, Oxford Economic Papers, 57, 191, 10.1093/oep/gpi019 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Dahl, 2002, “Mobility and the Return to Education: Testing a Roy Model with Multiple Markets,”, Econometrica, 70, 2367, 10.1111/1468-0262.00379 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Deming, 2012, “The For-Profit Postsecondary School Sector: Nimble Critters or Agile Predators?,”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26, 139, 10.1257/jep.26.1.139 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Duflo, 2011, “Peer Effects, Teacher Incentives, and the Impact of Tracking: Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation in Kenya,”, American Economic Review, 101, 1739, 10.1257/aer.101.5.1739 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Duflo, 2008, Handbook of Development Economics, Vol. 4
  13. Hamermesh, 2008, “The Effect of College Curriculum on Earnings: An Affinity Identifier for Non-Ignorable Non-Response Bias,”, Journal of Econometrics, 144, 479, 10.1016/j.jeconom.2008.04.007 · DOI
  14. Heckman, 1998, “Explaining Rising Wage Inequality: Explanations With A Dynamic General Equilibrium Model of Labor Earnings with Heterogeneous Agents,”, Review of Economic Dynamics, 1, 1, 10.1006/redy.1997.0008 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Heckman, 1985, “Heterogeneity, Aggregation, and Market Wage Functions: An Empirical Model of Self-Selection in the Labor Market,”, Journal of Political Economy, 93, 1077, 10.1086/261352 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Heckman, 2010, “Comparing IV with Structural Models: What Simple IV Can and Cannot Identify,”, Journal of Econometrics, 156, 27, 10.1016/j.jeconom.2009.09.006 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Heckman, 2006, “Understanding Instrumental Variables in Models with Essential Heterogeneity,”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 88, 389, 10.1162/rest.88.3.389 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Heckman, 2007, Handbook of Econometrics, Vol. 6
  19. Hoekstra, 2009, “The Effect of Attending the Flagship State University on Earnings: A Discontinuity-Based Approach,”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 91, 717, 10.1162/rest.91.4.717 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Hoxby, 2009, “The Changing Selectivity of American Colleges,”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23, 95, 10.1257/jep.23.4.95 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Imbens, 1997, “Estimating Outcome Distributions for Compliers in Instrumental Variables Models,”, Review of Economic Studies, 64, 555, 10.2307/2971731 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Jackson, 2010, “Do Students Benefit from Attending Better Schools? Evidence from Rule-based Student Assignments in Trinidad and Tobago,”, Economic Journal, 120, 1399, 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2010.02371.x · DOI · Paper page
  23. Lindahl, 2005, “College Choice and Subsequent Earnings: Results Using Swedish Sibling Data,”, Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 107, 437, 10.1111/j.1467-9442.2005.00417.x · DOI
  24. McCrary, 2008, “Manipulation of the Running Variable in the Regression Discontinuity Design: A Density Test,”, Journal of Econometrics, 142, 698, 10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.005 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Öckert, 2010, “What’s the Value of an Acceptance Letter? Using Admissions Data to Estimate the Return to College,”, Economics of Education Review, 29, 504, 10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.12.003 · DOI
  26. OECD, 2014, 10.1787/eag-2014-en · DOI · Paper page
  27. Pop-Eleches, 2013, “Going to a Better School: Effects and Behavioral Responses,”, American Economic Review, 103, 1289, 10.1257/aer.103.4.1289 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Saavedra, 2008, “The Returns to College Quality: A Regression Discontinuity Analysis,”, Mimeo
  29. Sattinger, 1978, “Comparative Advantage in Individuals,”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 60, 259, 10.2307/1924979 · DOI
  30. Sattinger, 1993, “Assignment Models of the Distribution of Earnings,”, Journal of Economic Literature, 31, 831
  31. Stinebrickner, 2006, “What Can Be Learned about Peer Effects Using College Roommates? Evidence from New Survey Data and Students from Disadvantaged Backgrounds,”, Journal of Public Economics, 90, 1435, 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2006.03.002 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Svensson, 1999, “Strategy-Proof Allocation of Indivisible Goods,”, Social Choice and Welfare, 16, 557, 10.1007/s003550050160 · doi:10.1007/s003550050160
  33. Willis, 5, “Education and Self-Selection,”, The Journal of Political Economy, 87, S7, 10.1086/260821 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Zimmerman, 2014, “The Returns to College Admission for Academically Marginal Students,”, Journal of Labor Economics, 32, 711, 10.1086/676661 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 568

Metadata

Authors
Kirkeboen, L. J., Leuven, E., & Mogstad, M.
Venue
The Quarterly Journal of Economics
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2016-05-03
Volume
131
Issue
3
Pages
1057-1111
ISSN
  • 0033-5533 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-4650
DOI
10.1093/qje/qjw019
OpenAlex
W2151951881
Cited by
568
References
5
FWCI
78.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Field of Study, Earnings, and Self-Selection*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/qje/qjw019
The paper
Kirkeboen, L. J., Leuven, E., & Mogstad, M. (2016). Field of Study, Earnings, and Self-Selection*. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjw019

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.