Está en la página 1de 14

# Applied problem set

ECONG020 Econometrics
Vida Keshtvarz and Nurfatima Jandarova
Tutorial group E
November 25, 2014

0214)** (0.095 -0. The results for pooled OLS estimations are very similar. (2003)).0215)** [0.077 0.021)** Age2 (÷100) -0.1489 0.097 (0. • standard deviation of estimator for age is slightly higher than in the original study (rounding to three digits would result in the standard error of 0.0266)** (0. These discrepancies seem to be not large.0266]** 428 428 428 0. (2003).0768 0.0874 (0.0943 (0.15 Reproduced Pooled IV OLS IV (3) (2) (3) 0. Define β1 as the coefficient reported by Bonjour et al. Twins Twins Original Education OLS (2) 0. Sif is years of schooling.0765 (0.K. * Significant at the 5-percent level.077 (0. (2003) and β2 as the 2 . However.021 in Bonjour et al. twin 1’s education is instrumented by twin 2’s report of twin 1’s education and vice versa. The comparison of the estimated and reported results are presented in the Table 1.027)** Observations R2 428 0.0268)** [0.Question 1 a) Here we are re-estimating the model set up by Bonjour et al.0778 0.0166)** [0.15 0.011)** Age 0. Standard errors are in parentheses. For the pooled IV estimates.027)** (0. • coefficient in front of the squared age is a bit smaller than the reported one. Table 1: Pooled Ols and Iv Estimates of the Return to Education for Identical U. both coefficients are statistically significant under 1% significance level). ** Significant at the 1-percent level.1469 Notes: Pooled twins regressions are based on ln wif = α + βSif + γXif + if where wif is the wage of twin i in family f. the estimators obtained from pooled two-stage least squares differ from the reported ones.0968 -0. • both the value and standard error of the estimator for education are higher in the reproduced model (nevertheless. and Xif other ovariates where indicated.078 (0. to make sure that this is so. Particularly.0108]** 0. we performed the Hausman test.0106)** (0. Columns (2) and (3) include a constant (not reported). However.022 compared to 0.012)** (0.021)** (0.0216]** -0.085 0.

8310 * Based on t-distribution. The downward bias could arise from the general tendency to overestimate one’s education level. this variable is unobserved and therefore contained in the error term of wage model. According to test scores and p-values we fail to reject the null hypothesis at a very large significance level. To construct a statistics to test H0 : β1 = β2 = β we used the following formula: z=√ β1 − β2 σ1 2 − σ2 2 The result is illustrated in Table 2.0137 0. The columns (3) in Table 1 report results of 2SLS regression results. These suggest that the measurement error in schooling were driving down the coefficient on return to education. some part of measurement error.9947 0. the constant in both OLS and 2SLS models are statistically insignificant.0046 0. which might have resulted in smaller variation of schooling variable among individuals than it should have been in fact.0000 0. authors performed a 2SLS estimation by using the education level of each twin reported by the other twin (cross-twin education report) as an instrument for education. In order to correct for the problem of endogeneity. so must be the differences in R2 . However. each additional year of education is likely to increase wage rate by about 7. with p-values of 0. c) The most obvious and widely discussed reason why education might be endogenous variable in wage model is because people’s ability is likely to affect both their wage and their education level. and σ1 2 . the simple OLS model has endogeneity problem that could arise from the influence of unobserved ability on education and from the measurement error of schooling. Therefore. However. Table 2: Regression coefficients equality test z-stat Education Age Age2 (÷100) OLS 0.9655 IV 0. the coefficient of education tells by how much does wage increase in percentage terms for an additional year of schooling.7%.0019 IV 0.9867 0. respectively. at least.224.0455 p-value* OLS 0. the coefficients on constant may not contain much information. As seen by the results in Table 1.replicated coefficient. as tested above. The ’goodness of fit’ measures of the replicated models are within the rounding error.9067 0. which causes bias of education coefficient. b) From the specification of the models. σ2 2 as their respective variances.0003 0. Given that we use the same dataset and the differences in the regression coefficients are not very large. This means that the discrepancies between estimations are most likely to be negligible.9458 0. According to our estimations. This action was taken in order to account for. 3 .325 and 0.

Therefore. instrumenting education variable by a cross-twin report on education level of each twin is aiming to correct for the measurement error. (2003). where • S1f . However. However. their correlation is not zero. consider the model for the wage rate of first twin in each family f with 1 self-reported education variable S1f . as the measurement error is part of the error term of log-wage model. 1 log w1f = β1 + β2 S1f + β3 X1f + u1f 1×1 1×1  ⇐⇒ log w1f = 1 1 S1f 1×K 1×1    β1 X1f β2  + u1f β3 where • X1f . Bearing this in mind. one can argue that individuals with higher preferences for employment are also highly likely to pursue schooling compared to other individuals.Therefore. Instead of self-reported education 1 2 level. To correct the problem we could use the IV estimator. also mentioned by Bonjour et al. we use the predicted value from the cross-twin report obtained from regressing S1f on S1f . Then the coefficients in log-wage model will be determined as follows: 1 2 βˆ = β + En S1f γˆ 0 En X1f  −1   En X1f En u1f 2 2 u1f )ˆ γ En S1f X1f γˆ  En (S1f 0 0 En (X1f u1f ) En (X1f X1f ) 2 En S1f γˆ 2 2 2 En (S1f ) γˆ 0 2 En (X1f S1f )ˆ γ 4 . who have smaller taste for work. (2005). is the measurement error (discussed in b)). They argue that the log-wage model implicitly assumes that education does not affect the labour supply decision and therefore drops labour supply determinants from model specification. Therefore. this may cause additional correlation between education and the error term. The problem is that the self-reported schooling might contain the measurement error: 1 1 S1f = S1f + v1f . there is another possibility for endogeneity of education in wage models. the exogeneity assumption that error term and regressors should be uncorrelated is violated.the measurement error of twin 1.the true education level of twin 1 in family f . we obtain biased estimator for education. Another reason for endogeneity of education. 1 • v1f . As argued in b). According to Bingley et al. the vector of coefficients β from log-wage model would be found by the following formula −1    1 En S1f En X1f En u1f 2 2 1 1 1 u1f )  βˆ = β +  En S1f X1f )  En (v1f ) En (S1f X1f ) + En (v1f En (S1f ) + En (v1f 0 0 0 0 1 0 En (X1f u1f ) En X1f En (X1f S1f ) + En (X1f v1f ) En (X1f X1f ) According to the weak law of large numbers the first and third elements of the second matrix will converge in probability to zero as n → ∞. To illustrate this.1 × K matrix of all other exogenous regressors.

Thus. we can think that the standard error of estimators were computed under the assumption of homoskedasticity. We found that the homoskedasticity hypothesis could be rejected already at 2. using command ”estat hettest”. This test imlicitly assumed normality of the residuals. we know that S1f itself has a measurement error.5860 3. 2 Exogeneity argument is harder to justify. we noticed large discrepancies in test results in response the change in assumptions about the error term. one cannot state with certainty that the instrument is always uncorrelated with the error term in the log-wage model.1221 0.9265 0. (2003) argue.4806 .0.3080 Within. As Bonjour et al.4655 0.8334 on regressors . The residuals from the model.3613 1. however.In case the exogeneity assumption is satisfied.4655 0. Although. the correlation between the self-reported and cross-twin reported schooling is also expected to be high.4457 0. On the other hand. Table 3: Heteroskedasticity test results Pooled OLS model Breusch LM score 1. However.Pagan test White test pLM pvalue score value 0. knowledge of twins on each other’s education level is expected to be fairly good. On the one hand. if the cross-twin report on education level is capable of notably reducing the magnitude of bias. which performs Breusch-Pagan / Cook-Weisberg test for heteroskedasticity. according to the command documentation. This argument supports the relevance of an instrument.1% significance level. We first test our OLS model for heteroskedasticity.2528 1. failed the normality test based on skewness and kurtosis. according to Stata. and the more contemporaneous analog of it would be the command ”ivregress 2sls depvar [varlist1 ] (varlist2 and varlistIV ). Once we have dropped normality of errors assumption.Pagan test White test pLM pvalue score value 0. the sample means may not be zero themselves. by the weak law of large numbers. small” d) Given the high level of similarity between the reproduced and reported OLS model and absense of heteroskedasticity discussion in the article. we no longer could detect any heteroskedasticity at a very high significance levels (Table 3).4806 5 Breusch LM score 1. most of the twins in their sample were attending the same school and even the same class. Therefore. therefore.6162 0. asymptotically the second matrix will converge in probability to zero matrix and Eβˆ = β. This is somewhat outdated function. it still may be used.3613 1. The command ”ivreg” in Stata estimates the two-stage least squares model with a degree of freedom correction to report small sample statistics.9351 0.8334 twin OLS model on predicted values . with large sample size instrumenting the education could reduce the endogeneity problem arising from the measurement error.

023) (0.033)* (0.0226) (0.0331)* [0. f) The differencing of variables between identical twins allows to control for unobserved ability. robust standard errors changed little.0179]* 214 214 214 214 0. We have included heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors in square brackets below standard errors computed under the homoskedasticity assumption in Table 1. the estimation results are very similar. Therefore. Unchanged standard errors may also suggest that heterogeneity caused by one factor inside the error term is roughly canceled out by the heterogeneity caused by another factor in the error term.Despite the contradicting test results.0394 0. except the standard error of OLS coefficient. it would be better to report heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.039 0. For the within-twins IV estimates. in our mind (see Figure 1).0141 0.0774 (0. the Figure 1: Estimated residuals from pooled OLS visual inspection of the residuals against regressors plot suggests presence of hetmodel eroskedasticity. Standard errors are in parentheses.000945 Notes: Within-pair regressions are based on ln wif − ln w2f = β(S1f − S2f ) + γ(X1f − X2f ).077 0.01 0. e) We replicated the within-twin pair estimations and found following results: Table 4: Within-Twin-Pair Estimates of the Return to Education for Identical U. As is seen in Table 4. that is people with ’very highly’ similar genetic and family 6 . As seen from there. the difference in self-reported education is instrumented by the difference in the co-twin’s report of the other’s education. This does not necessarily cotradict our conclusion of heteroskedastic error term.0009 0. ** Significant at the 1-percent level. Constant is excluded from the models. * Significant at the 5-percent level. It is natural to think that identical twins. Twins Education Observations R2 Within-twin pair Original Reproduced OLS IV OLS IV (4) (5) (4) (5) 0.K.

According to those. g) The constant drops exactly because we are estimating the differenced equation. when we performed the regressions in e). we fail to reject the null hypothesis of homoskedasticity at a very high significance level. Based on the plot. it is better to report the robust errors. (2003). the heteroskedasticityrobust standard error of education coefficient has decreased. making the coefficient of return to education statistically-significant at 2. 1 log w1f = β1 + β2 S1f + β3 X1f + a1f + u1f 2 log w2f = β1 + β2 S2f + β3 X2f + a2f + u2f 1 2 =⇒ (log w1f − log w2f ) = β1 − β1 + β2 (S1f − S2f ) + β3 (X1f − X2f ) + (a1f − a2f ) + u1f − u2f Therefore. at least. we believe that this model’s residuals are also heteroskedastic. Indeed. However. 7 . As is evident from the table.9% significance level. if not eliminate. we also decided to plot the residuals against the regressor (see Figure 2). are likely to have almost same abilities. we still must be careful in interpreting the coefficient with this standard error. the coefficient in front of it will be statistically-insignificant. The heteroskedasticity robust errors are reported in square brackets in Table 4.790 in 2SLS model).background. h) Table 3 summarizes the test results for the Figure 2: Within-twin pair OLS model residuals within-twin pair estimation model as well. we have found that the constant not statistically-different from zero (p-value at 0. the ability bias. given high sensitivity of the test results to the assumptions about the error term.763 in OLS model and at 0. However. However. Thus. but this time dropping the observations for which the absolute hourly wage difference is greater than 60. i) Table 5 summarizes the results of re-estimating the model in e). even if we include a constant in the model explicitly. In the presence of heteroskedasticity. this time including constant. there might also be some other idisyncratic ability determinants that will still show up in the differenced equation’s error term. subtracting the log-wage equation of one from the log-wage equation of the other is likely to substantially reduce. as it is too low due to doubling measurement error as argued by Bonjour et al.

039 0.0106 0.wage difference > 60 Observations R2 Within-twin pair Original Reproduced OLS IV OLS IV (4) (5) (4) (5) 0.0189) (0. dataset Observations R2 Drop if abs.0098 Notes: Within-pair regressions are based on ln wif − ln w2f = β(S1f − S2f )..K. * Significant at the 5-percent level.033)* (0. the difference in self-reported education is instrumented by the difference in the co-twin’s report of the other’s education. ”given their standard errors . Amin (2011) also performed outlier robust quantile regressions and concluded that the median return to education.077 0. because the cause of outlying observations could be as well from some data or reporting errors as from the underlying population distribution. suggesting steeper regression line. As one can see from the table. ** Significant at the 1-percent level. are not significantly different from the mean Figure 3: Outliers detection 8 . the resulting coefficient was higher. Twins Full Bonjour et al. As OLS is trying to minimize the distance between the outliers and the fitted line.01 0..0009 0. Constant is excluded from the models. j) The fact that dropping the outliers has decreased the OLS estimator for returnes to education is not very surprising after examining the figures 2 and 3.0394 0.0358 (0.000945 0. we cannot drop the outliers just because they are too far away from the rest of the sample. Geometrically. the education coefficient has significantly decreased and became statistically insignificant.0272) 210 210 0.0179]* 214 214 214 214 0.0774 (0.0226) (0. the coefficient beta is the slope of the regression line. ignoring the outliers would result in a loss of information. Obviously.Table 5: Within-Twin Pair Ols and Iv Estimates of the Return to Education for Identical U. there is no need in steeper slope anymore.0141 0. We need to justify such action. after dropping those outliers. In the latter case.0283 0. Standard errors are in parentheses. However.0331)* [0. For the within-twins IV estimates.023) (0.

The observed relative ages may not be random. which in turn means better training for them and better test scores. it is the case for most of students in their sample. but are representatives of some population group and we shall not drop them out. while being relatively older in the class. Bedard and Dhuey use the instrumental variable approach.077 on the full Bonjour et al. Relatively more mature students might already been pre-selected to a more advanced curriculum. These students might get better scores on a second year just because the course materials being familiar to them. As Bedard and Dhuey (2006) argue. The assigned relative age.within-twin pair IV estimates of 0. sample including the outlying twin pairs. However. they did not report explicitly the results for control variables. Either schools or parents may decide to waive start of schooling by one year based on abilities of a child. the coefficient would be upward biased. 9 . 11) and. according to Bedard and Dhuey (2006). this instrument satisfies exogeneity condition. a)3. R. the relevance conditon could also fail due to reasons discussed in a)1 and a)2 above. Thus. given the cut-off date in Canada being January 1. so we cannot compare them directly. However. Since the argument is that younger students are expected to perform worse than older students within the same grade. To correct for endogeneity problem. a kid born in December is the youngest eligible and is assigned R = 0. while a child born in January is the oldest and is assigned R = 11.” Thus. roughly speaking. Question 2 a) Bedard and Dhuey (2006) list several possible reasons for endogeneity of age: a)1. there is a possibility that younger students may have to repeat the grade. they compute the so-called assigned relative age and use it as an instrument for age. is the difference between the cut-off month and the birth month. takes discrete values on (0. The results could be seen below in Table 6. In particular. it is likely that the outliers are not just random errors. For students who start education at school on time and do not repeat the grade the observed and assigned relative age are strongly positively correlated. We have also included coefficients on other control variables that were included in the model by the authors. As long as the month of birth of child is thought to be random. b) We have replicated OLS and IV estimations reported in Table III in the paper by Bedard and Dhuey (2006).082 and 0. For example. a)2. While the argument seems realistic as it is hard to target specific month of birth. some parents could still target the certain quarter of birth.

Bold standard errors reflect significance of a coefficient at the 5 percent level or better.010 (0.1410) (0. while Bedard and Dhuey normalized over their sample of OECD countries.3368) 4.1317 0.Table 6: The Impact of Relative Age on Test Scores at the Fourth Grade Level Bedard and Dhuey Canada Age Sex Grade Rural Mother born native Father born native Child living with both parents Calculator Computer More than 100 books Household size Constant OLS 0.0172 0.3177) (0.7592 0.5275 4.9836) (1. native born father. c) • The coefficient on grade is positive as expected.1834 2.2545 2.2569) (0. grade.1289 2.9508 10.1316) 18.8433 (0.3415) (0.1431) (0. child has a calculator.9113) Notes: Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors are in parentheses.3707 (0.0739 4.1310) (0. in our dataset.8611 0.1942) (0. This can be due to higher accumulated human capital at higher grades and thus better scores.5541) (4.1394) (0.2477) (0.1485) (0. As their model is population weighted.2382 2. In particular. We find that our results differ from the originally reported ones.9736 2.018) IV 0.1636 -1.3246) (0.9635 (0.2605) (0. child lives with both parents. All TIMSS models include controls for: sex.1443) (0.0112) (0.8220 1.9810) (1.6912 -0.1903) (0.6741 -0.2729) 0.2103 -0. 10 .8740 (0.1871) (0.1498) (0.1442) (0.1514 2. child has a computer.0462 (0.3270) 1.0376 0.2469) 6.3161 (0.0633) -0.2639) -0.190 (0.8265 (0.1730 1.9327 -0.6340 4. One possible explanation for these differences could be the difference in normalisation of the dependent variable. the variances of the estimators are the same up to two decimal places.2119) (0.1463 (0.2087) (0.059) Replicated Unweighted Weighted OLS IV OLS IV 0.7497 6.7060 5.2958 (0.3418) 2.7250) -1. IV estimates use assigned age to instrument for observed age.2374 2.2628) 2. child has more than 100 books and a continuous measure for the number of people residing in the child’s household.6067 -0.4527 (0.5409 6.3853 1.0727) (0.6611 -0.3435) (0.3362) (0.0170) (0.1456) (0.2017 5.3430) (0.2672) (0.2027) (0.1842 0.8101 (0. we need to compare our weighted estimates with the ones reported in the paper.1823) (0. native born mother. the math scores were normalized over observations in Canada only.0771 2.0262) (0.9634 -0. However.6186 18.2571 (0. rural residential locations.2001) (0.3444) 1.3789 -0.0318 2.1845) (0.0717) (0.

05 0. as discussed earlier. being relatively older adds little to their math abilities compared to females’.0000 0.02 0.54 0. 0.1310 0.60 0.0000 0. it could also be the case that because of this belief males are more likely to receive a proper training in these areas and.0289 6.0262 7. Hence.0000 0.2106 0. This result could support the general belief that males are better at math and science than females.0369 5. However.0618 2.1842 0.0309 6.2039 0. thus.1588 0.0080 0. rural residential locations.0494 2. it is believed that schools in urban areas have relatively more study facilities. This was not what we have expected. • In the male subsample the relative age effect is lower than in the female subsample.0379 3. All these factors increase the possibility for a child to receive valuable help from his/her parents and enhance the learning process. d) The results for unweighted IV estimations for different subpopulations are reported in Table 7.0000 0.0000 0.0364 6.0000 Notes: Reported standard errors are heteroskedasticity-robust.1457 Unweighted IV estimation Std. native born father. One could connect these variables to a socioeconomic status of a student and argue that.Err.85 0. native born mother. There is also a positive correlation between a child living with both parents and receiving higher marks. child has more than 100 books and a continuous measure for the number of people residing in the child’s household. could be that males tend to be better scoring in math than females. generally.0100 0. IV estimates use assigned age to instrument for observed age. • Also as expected. grade.0371 4. • Household size has a negative impact on child’s math test score. Table 7: The Impact of Relative Age on Test Scores at the Fourth Grade Level Across Subsamples Subsamples All Only Only Only Only Only Only Only Only female male students whose mother is native to Canada students whose mother is not native to Canada students who report to have a calculator at home students who report not to have a calculator at home students who report to have a computer at home students who report not to have a computer at home Coeff. higher socioeconomic status allows access to more study facilities. Generally. 11 . child has a computer.• Studying in the rural area is expected to drive the math score down.2200 0. are going to receive higher marks.0000 0. child lives with both parents.1580 0. • Having a calculator or a computer or more than 100 books at home also impact test scores positively.65 0. z Prob > |z| 0. All TIMSS models include controls for: sex.71 0. should positively influence academic performance of a child.57 0. child has a calculator. It also might be the case that in a larger household it would be harder for a child to concentrate on studying as it is more likely to be distracted by other members of the family. mother or father being native to Canada helps to lift the math test score.26 0. One of the possible explanations.1891 0. • There is also a negative correlation between being a female and the math score. And therefore. One of the reasons could be that in a larger household a child might receive less attention than otherwise.

82 0.0262 7.School-Specific Fixed Effects Subsamples All Only Only Only Only Only Only Only Only female male students whose mother is native to Canada students whose mother is not native to Canada students who report to have a calculator at home students who report not to have a calculator at home students who report to have a computer at home students who report not to have a computer at home Coeff.0000 0.0050 0.0473 2. One could argue that having a calculator simplifies life.1971 0.65 0. as argued previously. rural residential locations. as seen from Figure 4 controlling for school-specific effects reduces the difference between different subsamples in our analysis.1974 0.• In the native mother subsample the relative age effect is higher than in the non-native mother subsample. We believe that this is due to native mother being more familiar with the education system and.1683 0.0000 0. therefore.0000 0.Err. • In the subsample of students who have a calculator the relative age effect is slightly higher than in the one with no calculator. First. could allow a child to receive additional training apart from the standard school training nd boost his/her test scores. which allows to enhance their effectiveness in terms of learning. grade. mathematically-oriented and some vocationally-oriented. the same argument might be reasonable here. To interpret the coefficients we need to remember that fixed effects estimation tries to separate the variance among students from the variance among schools as some schools might be.1462 Unweighted IV estimation Std.87 0.0000 0.79 0. e) The unweighted IV estimation results with school-specific fixed effects are reported in the table below.1773 0.72 0. having a calculator could also be used to predict the socioeconomic status of a student.73 0. • In the subsample of students who have a computer the relative age effect is higher than in the one with no computer.0283 6.0000 0. On the one hand. child lives with both parents. child has a calculator.19 0.02 0. having a computer might also be an indicator for higher socioeconomic status of the household. 0. for example.0345 5.0349 4. child has more than 100 books and a continuous measure for the number of people residing in the child’s household.0000 0.1933 0.0345 4.0267 6. we would expect a student without a calculator to be more familiar with methods of solving math problems. First of all. On the other hand. Table 8: The Impact of Relative Age on Test Scores at the Fourth Grade Level Across Subsamples . native born mother.00 0. so a student does not have to spend much time at solving problems himself/herself.0000 Notes: IV estimates use assigned age to instrument for observed age. it could be the case that relatively older students have better computer skills.0030 0.1842 0. This suggests that more ’advanced’ schools may have been accepting students with a more favorable bakground (for example. and thus. This in turn. All TIMSS models include controls for: sex.1835 0. being able to provide a more valuable help to her child at different stages compared to a non-native mother. z Prob > |z| 0. native born father. Secondly.0344 5.1323 0.0613 3. from a native household 12 . child has a computer.

25 . a native mother and a computer at home are likely to actually improve the learning capacity of a child. in which a child lives.00 0.10 0. Figure 4: Comparison of pooled and school-specific fixed effect estimations among subsamples 0.15 0. After controlling for such school-specific variations. kids in these schools would achieve higher results than a comparable child from a less advanced school. having a calculator no longer appears to be affecting kid’s math performance.20 0. However.with higher socioeconomic status).05 Only female Only male Only students whose mother is native to Canada Only students whose mother is not native to Canada Only students who report to have a calculator at home Only students who report not to have a calculator at home Only students who report to have a computer at home Only students who report not to have a computer at home Pooled 13 School-specific 0. Hence. the differences between these coefficients and their respective alternatives (having a non-native mother and not having a computer at home) are still high. the difference observed previously is predominantly the result of the variations in socioeconomic status of a household. The coefficients on relative age impact for children having a native mother and for those reporting to have a computer at home decreased slightly. Thus. As a result. We believe this is mostly due to selective admission to schools as discussed above.

Bibliography Amin. Returns to education: Evidence from uk twins: Comment. T. 93(5):1799–1812. D. The Persistence of Early Childhood Maturity: International Evidence of Long-Run Age Effects. (2005).. Bonjour. L. I. THE AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW.k. Bedard.edu/~adkugler/Ashenfelter&Krueger.php?doi= 10. http://www. P. Ashenfelter. (1994). and Walker. (2011).1468-0475. O.x/pdf. (2006). 101(4):1629 – 1635. twins. 2014 from http://www.com/doi/10.. E. F.4. D. Y. The American Economic Review. 2014 from http://onlinelibrary. 6(3):395–414. J. Zhu. and Spector.101..aeaweb. Cherkas. 121(4):1437–1472. Education.pdf. K. 84(5):1157 – 1173.uh.2005. Estimates of the economic return to schooling from a new sample of twins.00139. work and wages in the uk. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. and Dhuey. Bingley.1629..org/articles.1111/j. A.1257/aer. V. Retrieved on November 14. E. German Economic Review. and Krueger. Returns to education: Evidence from u. THE AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW.. Haskel. 14 . Hawkes. (2003). D.. wiley. Retrieved on November 12. D.