This paper establishes that a low dimensional vector of cognitive and noncognitive skills explains a variety of labor market and behavioral outcomes. For many dimensions of social performance cognitive and noncognitive skills are equally important. Our analysis addresses the problems of measurement error, imperfect proxies, and reverse causality that plague conventional studies of cognitive and noncognitive skills that regress earnings (and other outcomes) on proxies for skills. Noncognitive skills strongly influence schooling decisions, and also affect wages given schooling decisions. Schooling, employment, work experience and choice of occupation are affected by latent noncognitive and cognitive skills. We study a variety of correlated risky behaviors such as teenage pregnancy and marriage, smoking, marijuana use, and participation in illegal activities. The same low dimensional vector of abilities that explains schooling choices, wages, employment, work experience and choice of occupation explains these behavioral outcomes.

Over the past few decades, US business and industry have been transformed by the advances and redundancies produced by the knowledge economy. The workplace has changed, and much of the work differs from that performed by previous generations. Can human capital accumulation in the United States keep pace with the evolving demands placed on it, and how can the workforce of tomorrow acquire the skills and competencies that are most in demand? Education, Skills, and Technical Change explores various facets of these questions and provides an overview of educational attainment in the United States and the channels through which labor force skills and education affect GDP growth. Contributors to this volume focus on a range of educational and training institutions and bring new data to bear on how we understand the role of college and vocational education and the size and nature of the skills gap. This work links a range of research areas—such as growth accounting, skill development, higher education, and immigration—and also examines how well students are being prepared for the current and future world of work.

This paper examines the impact of non-cognitive (socio-emotional) skills on job market outcomes using a randomized control trial implemented in an online job portal in India. Job seekers who registered in the portal were asked to take a Big Five type personality test and, for a random sub-sample of the test takers, the results were displayed to potential employers. Outcomes are measured by whether a potential employer shortlists a seeker by opening (unlocking) his/her application and background information. The results show that the treatment group for whom test results were shown generally enjoyed a higher probability of unlock. That is, employers are more interested in those for whom they can see personality test results. Such a relationship was not seen in the pre-test period, which confirms that the above results are unlikely to be spurious. We also found a significant impact among organized, calm, imaginative and/or quiet applicants (no effect was detected among easy-going, sensitive, realistic and/or out-going applicants), which seems to display employers’ preferences.

To commemorate Research in Labor Economics s 35th anniversary, this retrospective edition contains 20 of the most influential Research in Labor Economics articles along with new introductory prefatory updates written by the original authors.

Achievement tests play an important role in modern societies. They are used to evaluate schools, to assign students to tracks within schools, and to identify weaknesses in student knowledge. The GED is an achievement test used to grant the status of high school graduate to anyone who passes it. GED recipients currently account for 12 percent of all high school credentials issued each year in the United States. But do achievement tests predict success in life? The Myth of Achievement Tests shows that achievement tests like the GED fail to measure important life skills. James J. Heckman, John Eric Humphries, Tim Kautz, and a group of scholars offer an in-depth exploration of how the GED came to be used throughout the United States and why our reliance on it is dangerous. Drawing on decades of research, the authors show that, while GED recipients score as well on achievement tests as high school graduates who do not enroll in college, high school graduates vastly outperform GED recipients in terms of their earnings, employment opportunities, educational attainment, and health. The authors show that the differences in success between GED recipients and high school graduates are driven by character skills. Achievement tests like the GED do not adequately capture character skills like conscientiousness, perseverance, sociability, and curiosity. These skills are important in predicting a variety of life outcomes. They can be measured, and they can be taught. Using the GED as a case study, the authors explore what achievement tests miss and show the dangers of an educational system based on them. They call for a return to an emphasis on character in our schools, our systems of accountability, and our national dialogue. Contributors Eric Grodsky, University of Wisconsin–Madison Andrew Halpern-Manners, Indiana University Bloomington Paul A. LaFontaine, Federal Communications Commission Janice H. Laurence, Temple University Lois M. Quinn, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee Pedro L. Rodríguez, Institute of Advanced Studies in Administration John Robert Warren, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

This book provides an overview of recent research on the relationship between noncognitive attributes (motivation, self efficacy, resilience) and academic outcomes (such as grades or test scores). We focus primarily on how these sets of attributes are measured and how they relate to important academic outcomes. Noncognitive attributes are those academically and occupationally relevant skills and traits that are not “cognitive”—that is, not specifically intellectual or analytical in nature. We examine seven attributes in depth and critique the measurement approaches used by researchers and talk about how they can be improved.