It's a decent, policy relevant paper written by lrm and ending in aej.
The Gender Problem in Economics is SOLVED!
-
^for their main effect of interest? I only took a look at Table 2 yesterday.
The main result of 8pp that is mentioned in the abstract has p=0.089. If they had just said that on twitter everyone would have switched from believing it to saying "that's not statistically significant".
Well that's just dumb. A big effect with a p-value of 0.089 is still an interesting finding.
-
Just skimmed the paper. They don't consider the effect of the treatment on the male students. Seems a natural control. If the effect is the same, it doesn't invalidate their treatment, but it changes the interpretation completely. And it would invalidate the singular focus on female students.
-
Just skimmed the paper. They don't consider the effect of the treatment on the male students. Seems a natural control. If the effect is the same, it doesn't invalidate their treatment, but it changes the interpretation completely. And it would invalidate the singular focus on female students.
You didn't skim very well. It's the last section, they claim no effect buying you look at appendix the effect is -6 percentage points, with roughly the same precision as their main result.
-
Just skimmed the paper. They don't consider the effect of the treatment on the male students. Seems a natural control. If the effect is the same, it doesn't invalidate their treatment, but it changes the interpretation completely. And it would invalidate the singular focus on female students.
You didn't skim very well. It's the last section, they claim no effect buying you look at appendix the effect is -6 percentage points, with roughly the same precision as their main result.
Apparently I did not skim well. Did not go through the entire paper. Table A5 in the online appendix is what I would have thought their main regression would be.
-
It has a significant impact on women but not on men, hence the paper
What they don't state in the paper is that while the estimated effect is +8 pp for females, it is -6 pp for males.
The standard errors of both estimates are roughly the same size. Yet they claim a large effect for females and no effect for males? Who refereed this?
I am not saying the paper has no problems, but you sound pretty bad as an econometrician. The natural hypothesis shouldn’t be a simple but it’s a composite one. Unless you expect something funky going down, it is weird to allow this treatment to induce negative effect. With one sided test, their interpretation sounds about right.