The Why Axis: Hidden Motives and the Undiscovered Economics of Everyday Life by Uri Gneezy, John List Page A
Authors: Uri Gneezy, John List
Ads: Link
Sally and the other researchers looked over their grades and talked with them. If they (or their parents, depending on the experimental treatment) won the cash payout, they walked away grinning—and not just because of the cash.
Even more fun was the big, suspenseful bingo-ball-style lottery. Each month, we drew ten names. If a student who met the standardscriteria won, he or she (or their parents, depending on the treatment) would take home the grand prize: $500 in cash (as well as a giant Ed McMahon–style pseudocheck) plus a ride home in a white, chauffeur-driven Hummer stretch limo, complete with comfy leather seats, tiny blue and green interior lights, TV consoles, ice compartments, and all the other trimmings. When Urail King saw the limo, he went wild. “Oh my G-o-d!” he shouted. “This is awesome! Oh yes, yes, you are getting straight As from me! Take me home, Jenkins!” 5
If the kids didn’t meet the monthly standards, Sally and the other researchers would make suggestions for catching up. The researchers even gave the students reminder calls during the month to ask them how they were doing in their classes. And, of course, the parents encouraged the kids and worked with them, too. After all, who would not want their kid to win the grand prize?
So how did the students and their parents respond to all these expensive incentives? Given the wiring of teenage brains (“I want what I want now ”), was it too much to ask the students to wait a month to receive their rewards?
Our overall results showed interesting gains. 6 We estimated that the program helped about 50 borderline students out of the 400 in the experimental group to meet the ninth-grade achievement standards. Among the students who were on the brink of failing, we figured the program had increased achievement by about 40 percent. Happily, these students continued to outperform their un-incentivized peers after the program ended in their sophomore year. In fact, our estimates suggested that about forty kids who would otherwise have dropped out would receive their diplomas because of our program. (We also found that students’ performance increased slightly more if their parents, rather than they, received the reward.)
Given that every additional year of secondary schooling increases lifetime earnings by 12 percent, offering such students an incentive during their freshman year seemed to be a clear, cost-effective intervention. If you also count the fact that the kids spent their time in school, rather than dropping out and hanging around the streets, the program was that much more successful. We had found a way to reach a slice of the kids on the brink—but only a slice.
Reframing Achievement
Tom Amadio was impressed with these results, but he pressed a question on a different front, beyond keeping kids in school: Could we increase the test scores of his students? After all, test scores are important door-openers, and are tied to future outcomes like years of education and high-paying jobs. Test scores also determine how much money a school district receives from city and state governments. Unfortunately, at the present time, minority students just cannot seem to catch their white counterparts when it comes to test scores. The racial achievement test gap remains both considerable and stubborn, and many urban schools fail at their mission to close it.
To answer Amadio’s challenge, we decided to run another set of field experiments that involved over 7,000 students in a variety of elementary and high school settings in Chicago and Chicago Heights. These tests took place in the schools’ computer labs, where students took a standardized test three times a year. 7
As an introduction to our experimental premise, perhaps you remember the images of two young girls who were gymnasts at the 2008 Summer Olympics. Both were winners. As the girls stood on the podium, each of them was overcome with intense emotion. And no wonder: they had both
Even more fun was the big, suspenseful bingo-ball-style lottery. Each month, we drew ten names. If a student who met the standardscriteria won, he or she (or their parents, depending on the treatment) would take home the grand prize: $500 in cash (as well as a giant Ed McMahon–style pseudocheck) plus a ride home in a white, chauffeur-driven Hummer stretch limo, complete with comfy leather seats, tiny blue and green interior lights, TV consoles, ice compartments, and all the other trimmings. When Urail King saw the limo, he went wild. “Oh my G-o-d!” he shouted. “This is awesome! Oh yes, yes, you are getting straight As from me! Take me home, Jenkins!” 5
If the kids didn’t meet the monthly standards, Sally and the other researchers would make suggestions for catching up. The researchers even gave the students reminder calls during the month to ask them how they were doing in their classes. And, of course, the parents encouraged the kids and worked with them, too. After all, who would not want their kid to win the grand prize?
So how did the students and their parents respond to all these expensive incentives? Given the wiring of teenage brains (“I want what I want now ”), was it too much to ask the students to wait a month to receive their rewards?
Our overall results showed interesting gains. 6 We estimated that the program helped about 50 borderline students out of the 400 in the experimental group to meet the ninth-grade achievement standards. Among the students who were on the brink of failing, we figured the program had increased achievement by about 40 percent. Happily, these students continued to outperform their un-incentivized peers after the program ended in their sophomore year. In fact, our estimates suggested that about forty kids who would otherwise have dropped out would receive their diplomas because of our program. (We also found that students’ performance increased slightly more if their parents, rather than they, received the reward.)
Given that every additional year of secondary schooling increases lifetime earnings by 12 percent, offering such students an incentive during their freshman year seemed to be a clear, cost-effective intervention. If you also count the fact that the kids spent their time in school, rather than dropping out and hanging around the streets, the program was that much more successful. We had found a way to reach a slice of the kids on the brink—but only a slice.
Reframing Achievement
Tom Amadio was impressed with these results, but he pressed a question on a different front, beyond keeping kids in school: Could we increase the test scores of his students? After all, test scores are important door-openers, and are tied to future outcomes like years of education and high-paying jobs. Test scores also determine how much money a school district receives from city and state governments. Unfortunately, at the present time, minority students just cannot seem to catch their white counterparts when it comes to test scores. The racial achievement test gap remains both considerable and stubborn, and many urban schools fail at their mission to close it.
To answer Amadio’s challenge, we decided to run another set of field experiments that involved over 7,000 students in a variety of elementary and high school settings in Chicago and Chicago Heights. These tests took place in the schools’ computer labs, where students took a standardized test three times a year. 7
As an introduction to our experimental premise, perhaps you remember the images of two young girls who were gymnasts at the 2008 Summer Olympics. Both were winners. As the girls stood on the podium, each of them was overcome with intense emotion. And no wonder: they had both
Similar Books
