Do On-Line Labor Market Intermediaries Matter? The Impact of AlmaLaurea on the University-to-Work Transition

This paper evaluates the impact of the availability of electronic labor markets on university-to-work transition. In particular, we analyze the effect of the intermediation activity carried on by the interuniversity consortium AlmaLaurea on graduates' labor market outcomes. Different timing of universities' enrolment in AlmaLaurea produces counterfactuals that allow us to overcome the problems faced by previous empirical investigations. The evaluation is performed applying the difference-in-differences method to a repeated cross section data set. It is shown that, if the usual assumption concerning parallel outcomes holds, AlmaLaurea reduces individual unemployment probability and improves matching quality. Interestingly, it is also found that on-line intermediaries foster graduates' geographical mobility.Labor Markets Intermediaries, Job Search, Electronic Markets

Do recruiters prefer applicants with similar skills? Evidence from a randomized natural experiment

In this paper we examine the potential existence of a similar-to-me effect in terms of skills between recruiters and applicants. Using evidence from entry exams to the Spanish Judiciary, where applicants are randomly assigned across evaluation committees, we find that committee members tend to be more demanding at those stages where they are more knowledgeable. As a result, applicants who excel in the same dimensions as recruiters are more likely to be hiredHiring, Randomized experiment, Similar-to-me effect

Do recruiters prefer applicants with similar skills? Evidence from a randomized natural experiment

In this paper we examine the potential existence of a similar-to-me effect in terms of skills between recruiters and applicants. Using evidence from entry exams to the Spanish Judiciary, where applicants are randomly assigned across evaluation committees, we find that committee members tend to be more demanding at those stages where they are more knowledgeable. As a result, applicants who excel in the same dimensions as recruiters are more likely to be hire

Why do I like people like me?

In many dimensions the ability to assess knowledge depends critically on the observer's own knowledge of that dimension. Building on this feature, this paper offers both theoretical and empirical evidence showing that, in those tasks where multidisciplinary knowledge is required, evaluations exhibit a similar-to-me effect: candidates who excel in the same dimensions as the evaluator tend to be ranked relatively higher. It is also shown that, if races or genders differ in their distribution of ability, group discrimination will arise unless evaluators (i) are well informed about the extent of intergroup differences and (ii) they may condition their assessments on candidates' group belonging

Do On-Line Labor Market Intermediaries Matter? The Impact of AlmaLaurea on the University-to-Work Transition

This paper evaluates the impact of the availability of electronic labor markets on the university-to-work transition. In particular, we analyze the effect of the intermediation activity carried on by the inter-university consortium, AlmaLaurea, on graduates' labor market outcomes. The different timing of universities' enrollment in AlmaLaurea allows us to apply the difference-in-differences method to a repeated cross section data set. If the usual assumption concerning parallel outcomes holds, AlmaLaurea reduces the individual unemployment probability and improves matching quality. Interestingly, we also find that on-line intermediaries foster graduates' geographic mobility.

Does the gender composition of scientific committees matter?

We analyze how a larger presence of female evaluators affects committee decision-making using information on 100,000 applications to associate and full professorships in Italy and Spain. These applications were assessed by 8,000 randomly selected evaluators. A larger number of women in evaluation committees does not increase either the quantity or the quality of female candidates who qualify. Information from individual voting reports suggests that female evaluators are not significantly more favorable toward female candidates. At the same time, male evaluators become less favorable toward female candidates as soon as a female evaluator joins the committee

Why do I like people like me?

In this paper we extend the standard model of statistical discrimination to a multidimensional framework where the accuracy of evaluators depends on how knowledgeable they are in each dimension. The model yields two main implications. First, candidates who excel in the same dimensions as the evaluator tend to be preferred. Second, if two equally productive groups of workers differ in their distribution of ability across dimensions group discrimination will arise unless (i) evaluators are well informed about the extent of these differences and (ii) evaluators can take candidates' group belonging into account in their assessmentsWe acknowledge the financial support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology (research grants ECO2008-06395-C05-05, ECO2008-01116 and ECO2008-03468

Do gender quotas pass the test? Evidence from academic evaluations

Abstract This papers studies how the presence of women in academic committees affects the chances of success of male and female candidates. We use evidence from Italy, where candidates to Full and Associate Professor positions are required to qualify in a nation-wide evaluation known as Abilitazione Scientifica Nazionale. This evaluation was conducted between 2012 and 2014 in 184 academic disciplines and it attracted around 70,000 applications. In each field, committee members were selected from the pool of professors that had volunteered for the task using a random lottery. We estimate the causal effect of committees' gender composition on candidates' chances of success exploiting the existence of this system of random assignment. In a five-member committee, each additional female evaluator decreases by 2 percentage points the success rate of female candidates relative to male candidates. Information from 274,000 individual evaluation reports shows that, in mixed-gender committees, male and female evaluators are equally biased against female candidates, suggesting that the presence of women in the committee affects the voting behavior of male evaluators

What you don't know... can't hurt you? A natural field experiment on relative performance feedback in higher education

This paper studies the effect of providing feedback to college students on their position in the grade distribution by using a natural field experiment. This information was updated every six months during a three-year period. We find that greater grades transparency decreases educational performance, as measured by the number of examinations passed and grade point average (GPA). However, self-reported satisfaction, as measured by surveys conducted after feedback is provided but before students take their examinations, increases. We provide a theoretical framework to understand these results, focusing on the role of prior beliefs and using out-of-trial surveys to test the model. In the absence of treatment, a majority of students underestimate their position in the grade distribution, suggesting that the updated information is “good news” for many students. Moreover, the negative effect on performance is driven by those students who underestimate their position in the absence of feedback. Students who overestimate initially their position, if anything, respond positively. The performance effects are short lived—by the time students graduate, they have similar accumulated GPA and graduation rates