CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 278Names, Identity, and Discrimination ResearchLabor market dynamics and wage inequalityHigher Education and Employability

The Value of Postsecondary Credentials in the Labor Market: An Experimental Study

Open access
Deming, David J., Yuchtman, Noam, Abulafi, Amira, Goldin, Claudia, Katz, Lawrence F.·2016·American Economic Review
DOI 10.1257/aer.20141757
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We study employers' perceptions of the value of postsecondary degrees using a field experiment. We randomly assign the sector and selectivity of institutions to fictitious resumes and apply to real vacancy postings for business and health jobs on a large online job board. We find that a business bachelor's degree from a for-profit online institution is 22 percent less likely to receive a callback than one from a nonselective public institution. In applications to health jobs, we find that for-profit credentials receive fewer callbacks unless the job requires an external quality indicator such as an occupational license. (JEL I23, I26, J24, J44, J63, M51)

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 · 10.1257/aer.20141757

Cites

Statistics

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

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?

  • Field experiments that explore gender-based discrimination have produced mixed results.

    “Notably, field experiments that explore gender-based discrimination have produced mixed results.”

    From Getting a Foot in the Door: A Meta-Analysis of U.S. Audit Studies of Gender Bias in Hiring (2025) · cites this paper as Deming et al. 2016

    The paper’s Main Results (page unavailable) report higher callback rates for women than men, while its callback tables show that gender differences are not significant in every job category. This supports variation in gender-related findings within this experiment, but the paper does not establish that field experiments generally have produced mixed results on gender-based discrimination. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The finding that there is an interplay between occupational gender composition and race parallels results of ongoing studies that investigate both race and gender to explain hiring discrimination.

    “Second, our finding that there is an interplay between occupational gender composition and race parallels the results of ongoing studies that investigate both race and gender to explain hiring discrimination (Bertrand and Mullainathan 2004;Chavez, Weisshaar, and Cabello-Hutt 2022;Deming et al. 2016).”

    From Getting a Foot in the Door: A Meta-Analysis of U.S. Audit Studies of Gender Bias in Hiring (2025) · cites this paper as Deming et al. 2016

    The Work section says the study randomized applicants’ race and gender, and the Results report callback differences by both characteristics. It also examines differences across occupations, but the passages do not establish an interplay between occupational gender composition and race. The citation supports the comparison to research on race and gender in hiring, not a parallel finding of that specific interplay. (LLM, conf=0.80)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. Autor, David H. 2014. "Skills, Education, and the Rise of Earnings Inequality among the 'Other 99 Percent.'" Science 344(6186): 843-51.
  2. Barr, Andrew and Sarah Turner. 2013. "Expanding Enrollments and Contracting Budgets: The Effect of the Great Recession Higher Education," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 650(1): 168-93.
  3. Bertrand, Marianne and Sendhil Mullainathan. 2004. "Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination." American Economic Review 94(4): 991-1013.
  4. Bound, John, Michael F. Lovenheim, and Sarah Turner. 2012. "Increasing Time to Baccalaureate Degree in the United States." Education Finance and Policy 7(4): 375-424.
  5. Cellini, Stephanie Riegg. 2009. "Crowded Colleges and College Crowd-Out: The Impact of Public Subsidies on the Two-Year College Market." American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 1(2): 1-30.
  6. Cellini, Stephanie Riegg. 2010. "Financial Aid and For-Profit Colleges: Does Aid Encourage Entry?" Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 29(3): 526-52.
  7. Cellini, Stephanie Riegg. 2012. "For-Profit Higher Education: An Assessment of Costs and Benefits." National Tax Journal 65(1): 153-80.
  8. Cellini, Stephanie Riegg and Latika Chaudhary. 2014. "The Labor Market Returns to a For-Profit College Education." Economics of Education Review 43 (December 2014): 125-40.
  9. Cellini, Stephanie Riegg and Claudia Goldin. 2014. "Does Federal Student Aid Raise Tuition? New Evidence on For-Profit Colleges." American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, forthcoming.
  10. Deming, David J., Claudia Goldin, and Lawrence F. Katz. 2012. "The For-Profit Postsecondary School Sector: Nimble Critters or Agile Predators?" Journal of Economic Perspectives 26(1): 139-64.
  11. Deming, David J., Claudia Goldin, and Lawrence F. Katz. 2013. "For-Profit Colleges." The Future of Children 23(1): 137-63.
  12. Deming, David J., Claudia Goldin, Lawrence F. Katz, and Noam Yuchtman. 2015. "Can Online Learning Bend the Higher Education Cost Curve?" American Economic Review 105(5): 496-501.
  13. Eriksson, Stefan and Dan-Olof Rooth. 2014. "Do Employers Use Unemployment as a Sorting Criterion When Hiring? Evidence from a Field Experiment." American Economic Review 104(3): 1014-39.
  14. Freeman, Richard B. 1974. "Occupational Training in Proprietary Schools and Technical Institutes." Review of Economics and Statistics 56(3): 310-18.
  15. Gaddis, S. Michael. 2015. "Discrimination in the Credential Society: An Audit Study of Race and College Selectivity in the Labor Market." Social Forces 93(4): 1451-79.
  16. Kuhn, Peter and Hani Mansour. 2014. "Is Internet Job Search Still Ineffective?" The Economic Journal 124(581): 1213-33.
  17. Lahey, Joanna N. 2008. "Age, Women, and Hiring: An Experimental Study." Journal of Human Resources 43(1): 30-56.
  18. Lahey, Joanna N. and Ryan A. Beasley. 2009. "Computerizing Audit Studies." Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 70(3): 508-14.
  19. Lanning, Jonathan. "Opportunities Denied, Wages Diminished: Using Search Theory to Translate Audit Pair Study Findings into Wage Differentials." B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy 13(2): 921-58.
  20. Mincy, Ronald B. 1993. "The Urban Institute Audit Studies: Their Research and Policy Context." In Clear and Convincing Evidence: Measurement of Discrimination in America, edited by Michael Fix and Raymond Struyk, 165- 86. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press.
  21. Neumark, David. 2012. "Detecting Discrimination in Audit and Correspondence Studies." Journal of Human Resources 47(4): 1128-57.
  22. Oreopoulos, Philip. 2011. "Why Do Skilled Immigrants Struggle in the Labor Market? A Field Experiment with Thirteen Thousand Resumes." American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 3(4): 148-71.
  23. Pearson Foundation. 2011. Second Annual Pearson Foundation Community College Student Survey. Washington: D.C.: Pearson Foundation.
  24. Riach, Peter A., and Judith Rich. 2002. "Field Experiments of Discrimination in the Market Place." Economic Journal 112 (November): F480-F518.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Deming, D. J., Yuchtman, N., Abulafi, A., Goldin, C., & Katz, L. F.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • National Bureau of Economic Research (US)
ORCID
Venue
American Economic Review
Publisher
American Economic Association
Published
2016-03-01
Volume
106
Issue
3
Pages
778-806
ISSN
0002-8282 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1257/aer.20141757
OpenAlex
W1653984643
Cited by
278
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 3
FWCI
80.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Economic Review (publishedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (submittedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
Institute of Education Sciences (R305C110011)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Labor market dynamics and wage inequality
  • Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education and Employability
Keywords
postsecondary credentials, employer perceptions, for-profit institutions, online learning, bachelor's degree, job applications, callbacks, labor market, professional licensing

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