Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Peer Effects, Learning, and Physician Specialty Choice

Contents:

Author Info

  • Peter Arcidiacono

    (Duke University)

  • Sean Nicholson

    (University of Pennsylvania)

Abstract

Sixty percent of medical students switch specialties between the first and fourth year of medical school. These changes have a profound impact on the students' future earnings because there are substantial income differences between specialties. In 1997, for example, the mean income ranged from $323,000 in orthopedic surgery to $133,000 in psychiatry. In this paper we use a unique data set that contains the universe of students who graduated from a U.S. medical school between 1996 and 1998 to examine factors that influence specialty choices. There are possible several reasons why so many students switch specialties. One possibility is that switching occurs because residency positions in high-income specialties such as orthopedic surgery and dermatology are rationed, based in part on a student's performance during medical school. As students learn about their own performance during medical school and learn about the rationing rule -- students who perform well in medical school have a higher probability of entering competitive, high-income specialties -- they adjust their specialty choice accordingly. Another possibility is that the ability and specialty preferences of a student's peer group affects his own performance and specialty choice. Finally, schools might exert their own influence on a student s performance and specialty choice. Empirical Model We divide the specialty decision into two parts. A student arrives at medical school aware of his ability, as measured by the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) score, and his preferred specialty. Medical students take the Step 1 National Board of Medical Examiners test after their second year of school. In the first part of the model, first-year medical students forecast their performance on the board exam based on their ability, the average ability of their medical school classmates (the ability peer effect), their current preferred specialty, and the school they attend. The first-year specialty preference is included to account for the possibility that students with similar levels of unobserved ability will select the same specialty, and students who plan to enter competitive specialties might work harder in order to increase the likelihood of entering the specialty. The error term from the regression of the board score on the forecasting variables is interpreted as a `performance shock' -- new information a student receives regarding his or her performance in school. In the second part of the model, the probability that a fourth-year student chooses a high-paying specialty is assumed to be a function of their predicted performance on the board exam, the performance shock, their first-year specialty preference, the first-year specialty preferences of their classmates (the specialty preference peer effect), and the school they attend. Data The sample consists of 37,000 medical students who graduated from one of the 127 U.S. medical schools in 1996, 1997, or 1998. We have information on students' ability prior to medical school, their performance during medical school, and their specialty preferences at the beginning and end of medical school. A student's pre-matriculation ability is represented by their test score on the biology, chemistry, and reading components of the MCAT, a uniform exam given to all medical school applicants. The Step 1 board score, also a uniform national exam, measures a student's performance in medical school. Students are surveyed by the Association of American Medical Colleges in their first and fourth years of medical school and asked to indicate their preferred specialty. Because we have the universe of U.S. medical students, we can measure ability and preference peer effects: the average pre-matriculation ability of each school's students and the proportion of each school's first-year students who prefer each specialty. Results Among first-year students, there are no substantial differences in MCAT scores between specialties. By the fourth year, however, students with high board scores are more likely to be in high-income specialties. Students who receive a positive performance shock -- a higher board score than they expected -- are much more likely to switch to a high-income specialty relative to other students. Women are more likely than men to choose a low-income specialty in the fourth year, conditional on their board score and initial specialty preference. Peer effects are an important determinant of board scores and specialty choices, but these effects disappear when we include school-specific fixed effects.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://fmwww.bc.edu/RePEc/es2000/1553.pdf
File Function: main text
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Econometric Society in its series Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers with number 1553.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: 01 Aug 2000
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ecm:wc2000:1553

Contact details of provider:
Phone: 1 212 998 3820
Fax: 1 212 995 4487
Email:
Web page: http://www.econometricsociety.org/pastmeetings.asp
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. William Brock & Steven N. Durlauf, 2000. "Interactions-Based Models," NBER Technical Working Papers 0258, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  2. Edward L. Glaeser & Bruce Sacerdote & Jose A. Scheinkman, 1995. "Crime and Social Interactions," NBER Working Papers 5026, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  3. Evans, William N & Oates, Wallace E & Schwab, Robert M, 1992. "Measuring Peer Group Effects: A Study of Teenage Behavior," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(5), pages 966-91, October.
  4. Sean Nicholson, 2002. "Physician Specialty Choice under Uncertainty," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, University of Chicago Press, vol. 20(4), pages 816-847, October.
  5. Manski, Charles F, 1993. "Identification of Endogenous Social Effects: The Reflection Problem," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 531-42, July.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ecm:wc2000:1553. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.