IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp500.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Estimating the Returns to Education Using the Newest Current Population Survey Education Questions

Author

Listed:
  • Jaeger, David A.

    () (CUNY Graduate Center)

Abstract

This paper examines the 1997 additions to the Current Population Survey education question. These new questions allow researchers to come closer to the “highest grade completed” measure available before 1992. Using the new information, the average imputed “highest grade completed” is one-tenth grade greater and the estimated return to education .6 to 1 percentage points lower than when using only the post-1991 “highest degree received” question.

Suggested Citation

  • Jaeger, David A., 2002. "Estimating the Returns to Education Using the Newest Current Population Survey Education Questions," IZA Discussion Papers 500, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  • Handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp500
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ftp.iza.org/dp500.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Melissa Clark & David Jaeger, 2006. "Natives, the foreign-born and high school equivalents: new evidence on the returns to the GED," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 19(4), pages 769-793, October.
    2. Jaeger, David A, 1997. "Reconciling the Old and New Census Bureau Education Questions: Recommendations for Researchers," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 15(3), pages 300-309, July.
    3. Harley Frazis & Jay Stewart, 1999. "Tracking the Returns to Education in the 1990s: Bridging the Gap between the New and Old Current Population Survey Education Items," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 34(3), pages 629-641.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Harley Frazis & Mark A. Loewenstein, 2005. "Reexamining the Returns to Training: Functional Form, Magnitude, and Interpretation," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 40(2).
    2. Melissa Clark & David Jaeger, 2006. "Natives, the foreign-born and high school equivalents: new evidence on the returns to the GED," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 19(4), pages 769-793, October.
    3. Melissa A. Clark & David Jaeger, 2002. "Natives, the Foreign-Born and High School Equivalents: New Evidence on the Returns to the GED," Working Papers 841, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    4. Michael S. Christian, 2014. "Human Capital Accounting in the United States: Context, Measurement, and Application," NBER Chapters,in: Measuring Economic Sustainability and Progress, pages 461-491 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. William Rodgers & John Holmes, 2004. "New estimates of within occupation African American-white wage gaps," The Review of Black Political Economy, Springer;National Economic Association, vol. 31(4), pages 69-88, June.
    6. Gustavsson, Magnus, 2004. "Changes in Educational Wage Premiums in Sweden: 1992-2001," Working Paper Series 2004:10, Uppsala University, Department of Economics.
    7. Fabián Slonimczyk, 2013. "Earnings inequality and skill mismatch in the U.S.: 1973–2002," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 11(2), pages 163-194, June.
    8. Richard B. Freeman & William M. Rodgers, 2005. "The weak jobs recovery: whatever happened to "the great American jobs machine"?," Economic Policy Review, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, issue Aug, pages 3-18.
    9. Michael S. Christian, 2011. "Human Capital Accounting in the United States: Context, Measurement, and Application," BEA Working Papers 0073, Bureau of Economic Analysis.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Current Population Survey; education;

    JEL classification:

    • J3 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Wages, Compensation, and Labor Costs
    • I2 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp500. 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: (Mark Fallak). General contact details of provider: http://www.iza.org .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.