On the road: I'll be in Bonn (June 5–15), Bergen (June 16–21), Toronto (June 27–29), and Boston (July 21–24). If you'll be nearby and would like to talk research, reach out!
Working Papers
(with Marcel Preuss,
Jason Somerville, and
Joy Wu)
Abstract |
arXiv:2503.15443 |
IZA WP #17788 |
Updated May 2025
Elites disproportionately influence policymaking, yet little is known about their fairness and efficiency preferences—key determinants of individuals' support for redistributive policies. We investigate these preferences using an incentivized lab experiment with a group of future elites—Ivy League MBA students. We find that MBA students implement substantially more unequal earnings distributions than the average American, regardless of whether inequality stems from luck or merit. Their redistributive choices are also highly responsive to efficiency costs, with an elasticity an order of magnitude larger than that found in representative US samples. Analyzing fairness ideals, we find that MBA students are less likely to be strict meritocrats than the general public. These findings provide novel insights into how elites' redistributive preferences may shape high levels of inequality and limited redistributive policy in the United States.
(with Evan Riehl and
Ruqing Xu)
Abstract |
NBER WP #32608 |
Updated June 2024
We examine a natural experiment in Brazil in which similar students took the same standardized test as either a low-stakes school accountability exam or a high-stakes admission exam for the country's top universities. Using administrative data and a difference-in-differences design, we find that test score gaps between high- and low-income students expanded on the high-stakes exam, consistent with wealthy students engaging in test prep. Yet the increase in stakes made scores more informative for students' college outcomes. Thus the "muddling" of information on natural ability and test prep improved the quality of the score signal, although it also exacerbated inequality.
Abstract |
arXiv:2301.02575 |
Updated January 2024
Cognitive endurance—the ability to sustain performance on a cognitively-demanding task over time—is thought to be a crucial productivity determinant. However, a lack of data on this variable has limited researchers' ability to understand its role for success in college and the labor market. This paper uses college-admission-exam records from 15 million Brazilian high school students to measure cognitive endurance based on changes in performance throughout the exam. By exploiting exogenous variation in the order of exam questions, I show that students are 7.1 percentage points more likely to correctly answer a given question when it appears at the beginning of the day versus the end (relative to a sample mean of 34.3%). I develop a method to decompose test scores into fatigue-adjusted ability and cognitive endurance. I then merge these measures into a higher-education census and the earnings records of the universe of Brazilian formal-sector workers to quantify the association between endurance and long-run outcomes. I find that cognitive endurance has a statistically and economically significant wage return. Controlling for fatigue-adjusted ability and other student characteristics, a one-standard-deviation higher endurance predicts a 5.4% wage increase. This wage return to endurance is sizable, equivalent to a third of the wage return to ability. I also document positive associations between endurance and college attendance, college quality, college graduation, firm quality, and other outcomes. Finally, I show how systematic differences in endurance across students interact with the exam design to determine the sorting of students to colleges. I discuss the implications of these findings for the use of cognitive assessments for talent selection and investments in interventions that build cognitive endurance.