Does Calculus Help in Principles of Economics Courses? Estimates Using Matching Estimators

Abstract

This paper estimates the impact of taking a calculus course on student performance in principles of economics. The analysis takes into account the role of observable student characteristics that are likely to influence the calculus choice and the outcome in the economics course. Propensity score matching provides estimates of the treatment effect of taking calculus when there is selection on observable factors. Matching estimation and OLS both suggest statistically significant and positive effects of taking calculus before principles. The estimates of the impact of taking calculus from matching techniques are, in this case, generally similar to those obtained by OLS. The matching estimation suggests that the largest benefit of calculus may be for those less likely – but not the least likely – to take it.

Keywords

Economic principles Calculus Matching estimation Propensity score Treatment effect

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Agodini

Roberto

, and Dynarski

Mark

(2004). “Are Experiments the Only Option? A Look at Dropout Prevention Programs,” Review of Economics and Statistics 86(1), 186–194.

Anderson

Gordon

, Benjamin

Dwayne

, and Fuss

Melvyn

(1994). “The Determinants of Success in University Introductory Economics Courses,” The Journal of Economic Education 25(2), 99–119.

Ballard

Charles L.

, and Johnson

Marianne F.

(2004). “Basic Math Skills and Performance in an Introductory Economics Class,” The Journal of Economic Education 35(1), 3–23.

Becker

Sascha

, and Ichino

Andrea

(2002). “Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Based on Propensity Scores,” The Stata Journal, 2(4), 358–377.

Bosshardt

William

(2004). “Student Drops and Failure in Principles Courses,” The Journal of Economic Education 35(2), 111–128.

Brasfield

David S.

, Harrison

Dianne E.

, and McCoy

James P.

(1993). “The Impact of High School Economics on the College Principles of Economics Course,” The Journal of Economic Education 24(2), 99–111.

Dehejia

Rajeev H.

, and Wahba

Sadek

(2002). “Propensity Score Matching Methods for Non-experimental Studies,” Review of Economics and Statistics 84(1), 151–161.

Dorans

Neil J.

(1999). Correspondences Between ACT and SAT® I Scores. College Board Report No. 99–1. College Entrance Examination Board, New York.

Douglas

Stratford

, and Sulock

Joseph

(1995). “Estimating Educational Production Functions with Correction for Drops,” Journal of Economic Education 26(2), 101–112.

10.

Elzinga

Kenneth G.

, and Melaugh

Daniel O.

(2009). “35,000 Principles of Economics Students: Some Lessons Learned,” Southern Economic Journal 76(1), 32–46.

11.

Fizel

John L.

, and Johnson

Jerry D.

(1986). “The Effect of Macro/Micro Course Sequencing on Learning and Attitudes in Principles of Economics,” Journal of Economic Education 17(2), 87–98.

12.

Heckman

James J.

, Ichimura

Hidehiko

, and Todd

Petra

(1998). “Matching as an Econometric Evaluation Estimator,” Review of Economic Studies 65(2), 261–294.

13.

Lopus

Jane S.

, Grimes

Paul W.

, Becker

William E.

, and Pearson

Rodney A.

(2007). “Human Subjects Requirements and Economic Education Researchers,” The American Economist 51(2), 49–60.

14.

Michalopoulos

Charles

, Bloom

Howard S.

, and Hill

Carolyn J.

(2004). “Can Propensity Score Methods Match the Findings from a Random Assignment Evaluation of Mandatory Welfare-to-Work Programs?” Review of Economics and Statistics 86(1), 156–179.

15.

Rosenbaum

Paul R.

and Rubin

Donald B.

(1983). “The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects,” Bio-metrika 70(1), 41–55