The Short- and Long-Run Impact of Comparative Noncognitive Skills

This study documents a new fact about educational production: Students' relative standing in noncognitive skills has lasting effects distinct from absolute skills and achievement. Using administrative data from Greece and quasi-random classroom assignment, I identify the causal impact of comparative noncognitive skills, measured as grade 10 classroom rank in grade 9 unexcused absences. A worse rank has persistent, nonlinear effects. While it lowers achievement for both genders, boys respond by sorting into more competitive tracks and higher-earning degrees, whereas girls shift toward less competitive paths. Gender differences in comparative noncognitive skills explain 37% of the gap in expected post-college salaries. Complementary evidence from a survey experiment shows that comparative behavioral labels systematically shift teachers' expectations and attribution patterns for otherwise identical students. This suggests that relative-standing effects operate through belief-driven institutional responses.