Research

Evaluators often observe signals of status alongside measures of individual performance, but do these signals distort evaluations? We study how institutional affiliation affects research evaluation using a matched-pair field experiment in the peer-review process of an early-career economics workshop. By randomly displaying or concealing affiliations across reviewers evaluating the same papers, we isolate the causal effect of institutional prestige. Disclosing affiliation yields a 1.61-point premium on a 30-point scale for papers from top universities, driven entirely by similarly selective reviewers. Affiliation visibility increases the acceptance probability of papers from top institutions and reduces representation of female and first-generation scholars.

Using university administrative data matched with census student surveys, this paper studies the effects of class rank on job preferences, labor market prospects, and early career outcomes. I find that being top of the class increases academic orientation, pushing graduates to pursue further education and to postpone labor market entry. Quantitatively, a one-decile increase in class rank (roughly 2–4 positions) reduces labor market participation by 1.4 percentage points one year after graduation, raises PhD enrollment by 0.6 percentage points, and lowers reservation wages by 0.8%. Higher-ranked students are willing to accept worse pecuniary conditions in exchange for jobs that align better with their studies, suggesting a role for intrinsic motivation. Effects are stronger for males and peer groups with higher average ability, indicating that peer competition influences rank effects. The weaker response of female graduates to relative rank signals also helps explain gender gaps in transitions into PhD studies and early-stage research careers.

Given the widespread use of educational credentials as proxies for ability, examining which agents might value and use this information, and how, is a question of significant policy relevance. This paper studies the effects of graduating Cum Laude on early labor market outcomes for Master’s graduates. Combining university records with a graduate survey and administrative employment spells data, I leverage the Cum Laude eligibility rules to implement a regression discontinuity analysis. I find no evidence of a short-term distinction premium in earnings or job search duration. However, the distinction shifts graduates toward more analytical and research-oriented occupations, mainly within universities, and away from high-paying sectors such as Finance and Insurance. These effects are driven by male graduates and are not explained by differential employer responses, suggesting that academic distinctions may operate partly through self-signaling and shaping prospects in addition to traditional productivity signaling channels.