代做ECO 231-Undergraduate Econometrics代写留学生Matlab语言

日期：2024-04-12 04:15

Paper Replication and Final Project

ECO 231-Undergraduate Econometrics

1 Replication

For the replication assignment, please reproduce the results reported in “The Labour Market Trade-offs of Pet Ownership”. Specifically, we would like you to replicate Tables 1, 2, and 3. The replication may not be exactly the same numerically, and in fact our own replication did not exactly match the authors, as is often the case. The goal is to understand the method of replication.

        You can find the database and the paper in Blackboard.

1.1 Submission Format:

1. .do file – Annotated so we know what each step is attempting to do.

2. pdf document – Write-up of your findings and methods, including tables of your repli-cated data.

1.2 Issues regarding replication

Note that the authors use a probability sampling weight for their regressions. The correct way to use sampling weights is as follows: reg y x [pweight = wtssall]

2 Final Project

The final project is a critique of this semester’s paper. The critique will be based on one main point. It means that, although you may know several things that are wrong with the paper, your project will discuss only one. Of course, choose the best one you can.

        The project begins with an introduction, where you explain the paper in broad lines: the question, the methodology, the results, and the conclusion. Then you introduce the point which will be the basis of your critique. You have to explain what your point is, then you have to provide evidence for this point, and finally you have to describe the consequences for the results of overlooking your critique point. For example, if you are defending that there is an omitted variable, you must explain what is the consequence of this omission: is the bias positive or negative? What is the consequence of this for society? Finally, you must have a conclusion.

        Don’t forget the bibliography, if applicable. It must follow a standard academic style. Any style. is fine, as long as it is the same for all entries. Turabian (also known as Chicago style) is a good choice, very well accepted in Social Sciences.

        The critique point must be specific. Is it omitted variable bias? Then you must defend that 1 specific variable was omitted. Which is it? Is it measurement error? Then which variable has measurement error? Is it sample selection? Then are you concerned with selection in which specific way? You must provide evidence, and you can go as far as you want there. You can use pure logic, you can use newspaper sources. However, the best evidence comes from actual research papers. If you want to really impress, you can bring outside datasets. There is no limit to the creativity you can put into the evidence for your point. Moreover, if you can solve the problem, then you should. It is not necessary to do this, but it certainly increases the level of impressiveness of your project to a whole new level.

        The project has strict formatting rules. The paper cannot have more than 8 pages counting everything (except the cover page). It must be written in single-space, Times New Roman font size 12. The document must leave 1 inch of space in all margins, no more, no less. Pages must be numbered. Include a cover page with your name, student ID, and class time. Here are some guidelines (not obligatory) to help you write the paper: a typical critique has a 2 page long introduction, then the critique itself is introduced briefly in about half a page. The body of the critique is very free, and the conclusion is usually at most one page long.

        The project is graded based on many things. First, the introduction where you summarize the paper. There we are looking for an excellent understanding of what truly matters in this paper. The words about which you should think are conciseness, precision, and readability.

        The body of the paper is, of course, the most important part. We are looking for a good critique point, which is defended using excellent evidence. The critique must clearly delineate what are the consequences of the problem you are raising. We reward creativity very highly. You can defend the same critique point as many of your colleagues, but then you are in direct comparison with them. If you choose an unexplored critique point, you will be evaluated on your own, which is a good thing. Moreover, when we see a novel critique point, we imagine that you thought about, but rejected, several more common ideas. Hence, we will reward you directly. We also reward the quality of the evidence. Not all evidence has the same strength and reliability. It goes like this: straight from data¿¿research papers¿¿online verifiable journalistic sources¿¿logical argument. This is not written in stone, but it’s a decent guideline. We reward effort and creativity involved in choosing, searching, and using the evidence. We also reward the strength of your whole argument. Is it easy to understand? Are you convincing?

        You can make up for things. For example, you may not be defending the most creative critique point, but you can make up for it with a brilliant evidence source, or even (wow!) a direct solution. Additionally, this is an essay, so your language counts a lot. We establish just a few points for style. and grammar, but don’t underestimate the power of a well written piece. An argument that develops fluidly, a paper that is not boring, a paragraph that is so well structured that the mind just cruises through it, all of those end up reflecting in your final grade. We punish pretty severely when your arguments are not clear, when we have to re-read things many times to get the point.