Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
Extrapolation Results
Counterfactual Simulations
Placebo Experiments
Conclusions
[(1)|]
[(1) (0)| = ]
[(0)|]
[(1)| = 1 ]
[(1)|]
[(1)| = 0 ]
[(1) (0)| = 1 ]
[(1) (0)| = ]
[(1) (0)| = 0 ]
[(0)| = 1 ]
[(0)|]
[(0)| = 0 ]
0
This Paper
1. Develop a latent factor-based approach to the extrapolation of
treatment eects away from the cuto in RD
I
Related Literature
1.
2.
Hu &
4.
5.
Introduction
Extrapolation Results
Counterfactual Simulations
Placebo Experiments
Conclusions
R = gR ( , R )
I Potential outcomes
the noise in
Y (0)
and
Y (1)
depend on
R:
(Y (0) , Y (1)) R |
but not on
[(1)| = 1 ]
[(1)|]
[(1)| = 0 ]
= {[(1)| ]| = 0 }
[(1) (0)| = 1 ]
[(1) (0)| = ]
[(1) (0)| = 0 ]
[(0)| = 1 ]
= {[(0)| ]| = 1 }
[(0)|]
[(0)| = 0 ]
0
| (|0 )
| (|1 )
[(1)|]
[(0)|]
M1 = gM1 ( , M1 )
M2 = gM2 ( , M2 )
M3 = gM3 ( , M3 )
where
M1 , M2
M3
is potentially discrete
M = (M1 , M2 , M3 )
I Inputs:
Step 1:
f |R , E [Y (0) | ],
and
E [Y (1) | ]
I Input:
fM
Step 2:
Identication of
I Inputs:
E [Y (0) | ]
and
E [Y (1) | ]
E [Y | M, D] and f |M,D
I Inputs:
Step 1:
f |R , E [Y (0) | ],
and
E [Y (1) | ]
I Input:
fM
Step 2:
Identication of
I Inputs:
E [Y (0) | ]
and
E [Y (1) | ]
E [Y | M, D] and f |M,D
Parametric Illustration
I Suppose the measurement model takes the form
Mk
= Mk + Mk + Mk , k = 1, 2, 3
M1 = 0, M1 = 1, and
2
0
0 0 M
M1
1
N
,
0
M2
0 0
M3
0
0
0
where
2M
0
2M
Details
Identication of f ,M
f ,M
Schennach, 2008):
1.
f ,M ( , m)
on
M3 .
M1 M2
M1 , M2 ,
and
M3
H such that
.
0
00
0
00
, , fM3 | m3 | and fM3 | m3 |
H fM1 | ( | ) =
4. For all
for all
dier
6=
00
I Inputs:
Step 1:
f |R , E [Y (0) | ],
and
E [Y (1) | ]
I Input:
fM
Step 2:
Identication of
I Inputs:
E [Y (0) | ]
and
E [Y (1) | ]
E [Y | M, D] and f |M,D
Parametric Illustration
E [Y (D) | ] = D + D , D = 0, 1
and
(Y (0) , Y (1)) M |
I Then the unknown parameters can be obtained from the
conditional means of
the cuto
Details
and
given
(Y (0) , Y (1)) M | .
< P [D = 1 | ] < 1 a.s.
f |M,D | m0 , 0 and f |M,D | m1 , 1 form (boundedly)
0
0
complete families of distributions indexed by m M and
1
1
m M .
2. 0
3.
I Inputs:
Step 1:
f |R , E [Y (0) | ],
and
E [Y (1) | ]
I Input:
fM
Step 2:
Identication of
I Inputs:
E [Y (0) | ]
and
E [Y (1) | ]
E [Y | M, D] and f |M,D
Extensions
Introduction
Extrapolation Results
Counterfactual Simulations
Placebo Experiments
Conclusions
DA Algorithm
Sharp Sample
I Sample restrictions:
I
I
I
Descriptive Statistics
20
10
0
10
Running Variable
20
.8
0
.2
Enrollment Probability
.4
.6
.8
Enrollment Probability
.4
.6
.2
0
.2
Enrollment Probability
.4
.6
.8
Latin School
Latin Academy
OBryant
20
10
0
10
Running Variable
20
20
10
0
10
Running Variable
20
20
Estimates
10
0
10
Running Variable
20
1.5
.5
.5
Mean Score
1.5
1
Mean Score
.5
0
.5
.5
.5
Mean Score
1.5
Latin School
Latin Academy
OBryant
20
10
0
10
Running Variable
20
20
10
0
10
Running Variable
20
Introduction
Extrapolation Results
Counterfactual Simulations
Placebo Experiments
Conclusions
Setup
I Specify a model with two latent factors:
I
I
English ability
Math ability
Measurement Scatterplots
Measurement Correlations
Estimation
I Measurement model: Maximum Simulated Likelihood
E
M
!
E M
2E
N
E M
2M
2
0
N M E X + M E E , exp M E + M E E
k
k
k
k
2
0
N M M X + M M M , exp M M + M M M
"
|X
MkE | , X
MkM | , X
E X
0
M X
#
,
Introduction
Extrapolation Results
Counterfactual Simulations
Placebo Experiments
Conclusions
Preliminaries
80
40
Running Variable
Estimates
40
80
3
2
1
Mean Score
2
1
Mean Score
2
1
1
Mean Score
Latin School
Latin Academy
OBryant
80
40
Running Variable
40
80
80
40
Running Variable
40
80
80
40
Running Variable
Estimates
40
80
3
2
1
Mean Score
2
1
Mean Score
2
1
1
Mean Score
Latin School
Latin Academy
OBryant
80
40
Running Variable
40
80
80
40
Running Variable
40
80
Exam Schoolextrapolation_all
vs Traditional BPS: All Applicants
O'Bryant
(1)
0.754***
(0.020)
Latin
Academy
(2)
0.948***
(0.013)
Latin
School
(3)
0.968***
(0.016)
Reduced
Form
0.021
(0.037)
0.049
(0.058)
0.024
(0.064)
LATE
0.027
(0.049)
0.052
(0.062)
0.025
(0.066)
First
Stage
N
3,704
* significant at 10%, ** significant at 5%, ***
significant at 1%
First
Stage
Reduced
Form
0.334***
(0.088)
0.429***
(0.105)
0.428***
(0.094)
-0.268***
(0.066)
-0.300***
(0.048)
-0.348***
(0.052)
LATE
0.376***
(0.102)
0.435***
(0.110)
0.448***
(0.098)
-0.353***
(0.087)
-0.325***
(0.053)
-0.353***
(0.053)
N
1,777
* significant at 10%, ** significant at 5%, *** significant at 1%
Updated: 2014-01-13
1,927
First
Stage
Reduced
Form
0.334***
(0.088)
0.429***
(0.105)
0.428***
(0.094)
-0.268***
(0.066)
-0.300***
(0.048)
-0.348***
(0.052)
LATE
0.376***
(0.102)
0.435***
(0.110)
0.448***
(0.098)
-0.353***
(0.087)
-0.325***
(0.053)
-0.353***
(0.053)
N
1,777
* significant at 10%, ** significant at 5%, *** significant at 1%
Updated: 2014-01-13
1,927
First
Stage
Reduced
Form
0.334***
(0.088)
0.429***
(0.105)
0.428***
(0.094)
-0.268***
(0.066)
-0.300***
(0.048)
-0.348***
(0.052)
LATE
0.376***
(0.102)
0.435***
(0.110)
0.448***
(0.098)
-0.353***
(0.087)
-0.325***
(0.053)
-0.353***
(0.053)
N
1,777
* significant at 10%, ** significant at 5%, *** significant at 1%
Updated: 2014-01-13
1,927
Introduction
Extrapolation Results
Counterfactual Simulations
Placebo Experiments
Conclusions
Counterfactual Simulations
I Simulate eects of two admissions reforms:
1.
2.
(Boston 1975-1998)
(Chicago 2010-)
All
Applicants
Minority Preferences
Applicant Group
All
NonApplicants Minority
Minority
(1)
(2)
(3)
0.023*** 0.027***
0.017*
(0.004)
(0.007)
(0.009)
3,704
2,086
1,618
Affected
Applicants
All
Applicants
(4)
0.015***
(0.005)
3,704
0.062*** 0.074***
0.046*
0.050***
(0.011)
(0.019)
(0.025)
(0.016)
1,367
754
613
1,100
* significant at 10%, ** significant at 5%, *** significant at 1%
Updated: 2014-01-13
Socioeconomic Preferences
Applicant Group
SES
SES
SES
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
(5)
(6)
(7)
0.024**
0.011*
0.006
(0.011)
(0.006)
(0.005)
737
876
901
SES
Tier 4
(8)
0.018*
(0.010)
1,190
0.068**
(0.031)
265
0.054*
(0.029)
404
0.044*
(0.023)
223
0.026
(0.024)
208
All
Applicants
Minority Preferences
Applicant Group
All
NonApplicants Minority
Minority
(1)
(2)
(3)
0.023*** 0.027***
0.017*
(0.004)
(0.007)
(0.009)
3,704
2,086
1,618
Affected
Applicants
All
Applicants
(4)
0.015***
(0.005)
3,704
0.062*** 0.074***
0.046*
0.050***
(0.011)
(0.019)
(0.025)
(0.016)
1,367
754
613
1,100
* significant at 10%, ** significant at 5%, *** significant at 1%
Updated: 2014-01-13
Socioeconomic Preferences
Applicant Group
SES
SES
SES
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
(5)
(6)
(7)
0.024**
0.011*
0.006
(0.011)
(0.006)
(0.005)
737
876
901
SES
Tier 4
(8)
0.018*
(0.010)
1,190
0.068**
(0.031)
265
0.054*
(0.029)
404
0.044*
(0.023)
223
0.026
(0.024)
208
All
Applicants
Minority Preferences
Applicant Group
All
NonApplicants Minority
Minority
(1)
(2)
(3)
0.023*** 0.027***
0.017*
(0.004)
(0.007)
(0.009)
3,704
2,086
1,618
Affected
Applicants
All
Applicants
(4)
0.015***
(0.005)
3,704
0.062*** 0.074***
0.046*
0.050***
(0.011)
(0.019)
(0.025)
(0.016)
1,367
754
613
1,100
* significant at 10%, ** significant at 5%, *** significant at 1%
Updated: 2014-01-13
Socioeconomic Preferences
Applicant Group
SES
SES
SES
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
(5)
(6)
(7)
0.024**
0.011*
0.006
(0.011)
(0.006)
(0.005)
737
876
901
SES
Tier 4
(8)
0.018*
(0.010)
1,190
0.068**
(0.031)
265
0.054*
(0.029)
404
0.044*
(0.023)
223
0.026
(0.024)
208
Introduction
Extrapolation Results
Counterfactual Simulations
Placebo Experiments
Conclusions
Placebo Experiments
Strategy:
1. Split data on applicants with assignment
Z = 0, 1, 2, 3
in half
2
0
25
50
50
25
Running Variable
Running Variable
Latin Academy
Latin School
25
50
25
50
2
1
0
1
Mean Score
25
50
Mean Score
Mean Score
1
1
Mean Score
OBryant
No Offer
50
25
25
50
Running Variable
50
25
Running Variable
Fitted
Extrapolated
Placebo Extrapolation:
Estimates
placebo
All
Applicants
Below
Placebo
Cutoff
No
Offer
(1)
-0.057
(0.064)
1,777
O'Bryant
(2)
0.080
(0.068)
563
Latin
Academy
(3)
-0.041
(0.062)
625
Latin
School
(4)
-0.008
(0.045)
793
-0.133
(0.099)
887
0.027
(0.061)
280
-0.028
(0.055)
311
0.027
(0.049)
368
Above
0.020
0.133
-0.054
-0.044
Placebo
(0.056)
(0.102)
(0.097)
(0.068)
Cutoff
890
283
314
371
* significant at 10%, ** significant at 5%, *** significant at 1%
Introduction
Extrapolation Results
Counterfactual Simulations
Placebo Experiments
Conclusions
Conclusions
M1 = + M1
and M1 independent
either f or fM1 known
M1 = + M1 , M2 = + M2
, M1 , and M2 jointly independent
E [M1 ] =
E [Mk ] = Mk + Mk , k = 2, 3
Cov [M1 , Mk ] = Mk 2 , k = 2, 3
Cov [M2 , M3 ] = M2 M3 2
Var [M1 ] = 2 + 2M
2
Var [Mk ] = Mk + 2M , k = 2, 3
k
Back
E Y | M = m10 , D = 0 = 0 + 0 E | M = m10 , D = 0
E Y | M = m20 , D = 0 = 0 + 0 E | M = m20 , D = 0
E Y | M = m11 , D = 1 = 1 + 1 E | M = m11 , D = 1
E Y | M = m21 , D = 1 = 1 + 1 E | M = m21 , D = 1
Back
2.
P [D (1) D (0) | ] = 1
a.s.
3.
a.s.
Then
Back
r R
+1
1 , . . . , K :
M1k
M2k
= gM k k , M k , k = 1, . . . , K
1
1
= gM k k , M k , k = 1, . . . , K
2
M3 = gW (1 , . . . , K , M3 )
M1k
I
M2k , k = 1, . . . , K ,
M3
potentially discrete
M = (M1 , M2 , M3 )
and
continuous,
Back
I Round
k > 1:
k 1
are
k 1
and
Back
Sharp Sample
I Three ways for an applicant to be admitted to exam school
1. Exam school s is the applicant's 1st choice, and she clears the
admissions cuto.
2. The applicant does not clear the admissions cuto for her 1st
choice, exam school s is her 2nd choice, and she clears the
admissions cuto.
3. The applicant does not clear the admissions cuto for her 1st
or 2nd choice, exam school s is her 3rd choice, and she clears
the admissions cuto.
I This forms the basis for the denition of a sharp sample for
each exam school
I
Back
Descriptive Statistics
descriptives
Exam School Assignment
All
All
No
BPS
Applicants
Offer
O'Bryant
Latin
Latin
Academy
School
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Female
0.489
0.545
0.516
0.579
0.581
0.577
Black
0.516
0.399
0.523
0.396
0.259
0.123
Hispanic
0.265
0.189
0.223
0.196
0.180
0.081
FRPL
0.755
0.749
0.822
0.788
0.716
0.499
LEP
0.116
0.073
0.109
0.064
0.033
0.004
Bilingual
0.315
0.387
0.353
0.420
0.451
0.412
SPED
0.227
0.043
0.073
0.009
0.006
0.009
English 4
0.000
0.749
0.251
0.870
1.212
1.858
Math 4
0.000
0.776
0.206
0.870
1.275
2.114
21,094
5,179
2,791
755
790
843
Updated: 2013-11-08
Back
Measurement Scatterplots
3
2
1
1
2
2
MCAS English 4
Math
2
1
2
ISEE Quantitative
2
1
ISEE Math
2
1
0
1
ISEE Quantitative
MCAS English 4
.
3
ISEE Verbal
2
2
ISEE Verbal
2
1
2
ISEE Reading
2
1
0
ISEE Reading
1
2
ISEE Math
English
MCAS Math 4
MCAS Math 4
2
0
2
MCAS English 4
MCAS Math 4
Back
Measurement Correlations
measurement_correlations
ISEE
MCAS
Reading
Verbal
Math
Quantitative
English 4
Math 4
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Panel A: ISEE
Reading
0.735
0.631
0.621
0.670
0.581
Verbal
0.735
0.619
0.617
0.655
0.587
Math
0.631
0.619
0.845
0.598
0.740
Quantitative
0.621
0.617
0.845
0.570
0.718
English 4
0.670
0.655
0.598
0.570
0.713
Math 4
0.581
0.587
0.740
0.718
0.713
1.000
Panel B: MCAS
N
Updated: 2013-11-08
Back
5,179
Eects at therd_estimates_all
Admissions Cutos: Estimates
O'Bryant
Latin
Latin
Academy
School
(1)
(2)
(3)
First
0.781***
0.955***
0.964***
Stage
(0.034)
(0.018)
(0.018)
Reduced
0.047
-0.021
-0.086
Form
(0.055)
(0.044)
(0.052)
LATE
0.060
-0.022
-0.089
(0.070)
(0.046)
(0.054)
1,475
1,999
907
Marginal Density
.2
.4
.6
2
English Ability
.1
Marginal Density
.2
.3
.4
.5
2
Math Ability
English Ability
1
2
2
Math Ability
Back
Reading
(1)
E
1.160***
(0.033)
0.081***
(0.020)
MCAS
Math
Quantitative
English 4
Math 4
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Panel A: Factor Loading on Mean
1.180***
1
(0.035)
1.135***
1.119***
1
(0.027)
(0.028)
Verbal
(2)
N
5,179
* significant at 10%, ** significant at 5%, *** significant at 1%
Updated: 2014-01-13
Back
0.124***
(0.015)
Dependencelatent_fs_rf
of Outcomes on English and Math Ability
No
Offer
(1)
E
M
E
M
-0.001
(0.011)
-0.012
(0.008)
Latin
O'Bryant Academy
(2)
(3)
Panel A: First Stage
-0.025
-0.102*
(0.076)
(0.053)
-0.059
0.012
(0.061)
(0.030)
Latin
School
(4)
0.003
(0.009)
0.027**
(0.012)
0.446***
(0.062)
0.604***
(0.056)
0.239***
(0.046)
0.158***
(0.044)
563
N
1,777
625
793
* significant at 10%, ** significant at 5%, *** significant at 1%
Back
Estimates: Allrd_extrapolation_all
Applicants
First
Stage
O'Bryant
(1)
0.858***
(0.038)
Latin
Academy
(2)
0.962***
(0.021)
Latin
School
(3)
0.950***
(0.018)
Reduced
Form
0.252***
(0.068)
0.279***
(0.075)
0.199***
(0.061)
LATE
0.293***
(0.081)
0.290***
(0.079)
0.209***
(0.064)
N
2,240
2,760
3,340
* significant at 10%, ** significant at 5%, ***
significant at 1%
First
Stage
Reduced
Form
0.343***
(0.089)
0.362***
(0.092)
0.281***
(0.075)
-0.021
(0.034)
-0.005
(0.046)
-0.091*
(0.054)
LATE
0.385***
(0.102)
0.367***
(0.097)
0.293***
(0.079)
-0.028
(0.045)
-0.006
(0.053)
-0.099*
(0.059)
625
739
N
1,677
2,135
2,601
563
* significant at 10%, ** significant at 5%, *** significant at 1%
Updated: 2014-01-13
Back
Socioeconomic Tiers
I Census tracts are given a socioeconomic index based on
1.
2.
3.
4.
Back
Observedcfsim12_assignments
and Counterfactual Assignments
Actual Assignment
No
Counterfactual
Assignment
Offer
(1)
Latin
Latin
O'Bryant
Academy
School
(2)
(3)
(4)
2418
221
113
39
O'Bryant
280
129
133
213
Latin Academy
88
389
268
45
Latin School
16
276
546
2579
159
39
O'Bryant
14
203
319
146
87
Latin Academy
106
403
272
Latin School
171
202
470
Back Updated:
2013-11-08
cfsim12_cutoffs
Latin
O'Bryant
Academy
School
(1)
(2)
(3)
-14.1
-20.6
-31.9
Non-Minority
15.8
12.4
7.8
-20.4
-26.4
-32.9
SES Tier 2
-6.6
-11.7
-16.1
SES Tier 3
-2.5
-7.2
-17.1
SES Tier 4
8.0
2.1
-5.1
Latin
Latin
O'Bryant
Academy
School
(2)
(3)
(4)
0.502
0.588
0.629
0.572
Black
0.430
0.440
0.386
0.274
Hispanic
0.182
0.220
0.203
0.172
FRPL
0.810
0.771
0.715
0.556
LEP
0.116
0.030
0.022
0.018
Bilingual
0.386
0.396
0.380
0.391
SPED
0.073
0.009
0.013
0.005
English 4
0.277
0.981
1.215
1.668
Math 4
0.277
0.963
1.289
1.781
Female
0.514
0.572
0.597
0.575
Black
0.499
0.360
0.295
0.203
Hispanic
0.223
0.191
0.143
0.120
FRPL
0.813
0.728
0.673
0.624
LEP
0.107
0.058
0.030
0.017
Bilingual
0.359
0.423
0.391
0.445
SPED
0.073
0.012
0.006
0.006
English 4
0.261
1.067
1.309
1.556
Math 4
0.217
1.146
1.365
1.744
2,791
755
790
843
Back
Updated: 2013-11-08