effects on individuals work ethic /ed-07* /AN

– On my project, I specify the need to use STATA. The writer accepted the job but didn’t have STATA. However, I made it available for him/her and gave him/her the data already cleaned and merged and structured.

– I specify the results need to be derived from an IV regression just like in the study by Barbetta. The purpose was to replicate the results for work ethic. The writer replicated without even specifying which strategy was used. My examiner couldn’t also understand was method was used to derive the results. I ended up adding most of the work when it comes to the methodology. You can compare what was done by the writer and what was done by me. File methodology writer vs methodology me You will notice there is no real information.

– the tables were not properly exported but I informed the writer that the tables had to be exported like in the study by barrette. Meaning the writer has to use the right STATA command to export the tables accordingly. My exact message: ”Hello, hope the work is going well. If you need any extra information or have any questions just let me know. Just wanted to summarize some points because I have never used this platform before so not sure what needs specification:- use of at least 3 sources but optimally 15- need to test for a hypothesis, you have the freedom to choose of course- I uploaded some of the work I had begun doing, you are free to make use of it or not as well- there is the necessity to export some of the tables just like in the literature for Barbetta to complements the results and analysis section.”

– After reading the work I also noticed the use of the passive voice A LOT. I think we can both agree that is not correct or appropriate for a bachelor’s thesis or any thesis.

– For my dissatisfaction, the writer said “ Hi, If you look through the data, there is no specific column showing multigrading. However, multigrading is shown in the columns labeled “kidsfromgrade-something” Now, under each variable with such a name, there is the response of “Yes” or “No”. Now, the best way to analyse such a dataset is to take one after the other. In this case, there are children who are in grade 4 and under “kidsfromgrade5” variable, it is indicated “Yes”. This implies that the child went through a multigrading system involving kid from grade 5. This is why I have done the regressions the way they are. If there was a column that showed that the kid was multigraded and one was not, then it could be very straightforward to conduct the regression analysis using the IV and Vs.” If someone knows how to use STATA they will 1) have access to the system themselves 2) know how to generate dummy variables. But the author showed no knowledge on how to do so. So I sent an email explaining that he/she had to generate a dummy variable. I even uploaded the data already with dummy variable made myself to make it easier for the writer so I could deliver it in time.

– I edited the file sent by the writer by adding at least a thousand words more and correct it. I even added background literature that was specified in the project from the start that the writer did not follow. The background literature by Barrette and Paula was done by me. The introduction was a copy-paste of the one I uploaded, in the beginning, to also facilitate the writer. The writer copy-pasted the intro without reading over and correcting the in-text references. When I first received the file I noticed this because no changes or improvements were made. Yet, I fixed as much as I could and asked my examiner for some notes. Bellow in the file named “examiners notes” you can check for yourself the amount of mistakes. There was SO MUCH information completely misplaced.

– The examiner used dubious sources instead of the ones I provided in the beginning. One of the sources didn’t have a date. I find this super unprofessional. Anyone knows to only use trustable sources.

-This was the examiners overall comment “
In general, we suggest that you make the analysis more simple. Just do an OLS regression with the students that attend a multi-graded class. Would you please hand in a Stata DO-file to me personally such that I can check the work? Moreover, we would like you to split the analysis section into three parts a) effect on work ethic b) effect on outcomes c) the effect on cofounders.”

If you could pay special attention to :

– input the tables directly in the document ready for submission in the correct place.
– make a table with descriptive statistics
– an interpretation of the variables more reader friendly
– fix everything that has a comment
– correct the passive voice and organization of information throughout
– correct the statistics since the tables are new
– remove the old tables
– have a graph of the variables
– explain the OLS and then explain the endogenous issue and then do the IV. justification for the design chosen is needed
– Revise in-text reference and the bibliography. Need reliable sources with year specificied
– adjust methodology to the new tables with new variable description
-simply overall and make it easy to read
-shorter paragraphs too
– proper export tables from STATA, there is a correct command, not screenshots

– The writer gave a file with the tables indeed but the tables were 3 pages long, n to formatted like in the study by barrette like I asked.

– the tables contained information in dutch, something that was specified in my examiners notes to correct for.

– the tables contained information on variables not used for the study, meaning the writer took no time to properly select revenant variables.

– I asked the writer to correct the information according to the examiners comments, yet I still had to organize the text since he/she once again completely ignored the comment. Different authors are just splashed everywhere.

– the endogenous issue was not explained just mentioned

– I asked for shorts paragraphs and the writer didn’t summarise anything

– After the revision, I checked the file, and literally, it was a definitive fail! the writer contradicts him/herself so many times. it’s impossible to understand which author agrees with what. The writer wrote “Irvine (2020) supports this finding by stating that multi-grading increases chances to gain social skills through observation, learning, and studying. ” and “Irvine (2020) opposes Reed’s (2020) theory stating that there are more effective ways that students gain social skills than multi-grading. According to Irvine (2020), multi-grading crowds classes reduce personal spaces that students would otherwise use to gain the self-confidence necessary for social skills.” proving that the writer didn’t even read over his own work.

– The sentences were still hard to read and long.

– I had very few hours to transform the work.

– I ended up cutting most of the information as it was completely unnecessary.

Attached are all the files needed for you to compare.

INITIAL INSTRUCTIONS:

Research Question: Does multi-grading lead to a better work ethic?
Who gets what, and why? This is the central question in economics. Education and genetics, given an institutional setting, seem to be a large part of this question’s answer. Whereas genetics is determined at conception, education seems more malleable. In schools, however, education has mainly been about cognitive skills. Likely because these are the skills that are easy to teach. Nonetheless, the current literature in economics has pointed out the importance of non-cognitive or soft-skills (Kautz et al., 2014).
Still, it is not clear how these skills can be thought, or if these skills are malleable at all. In this project, you will investigate the malleability of soft-skills. A conjecture is that some life circumstances can tell us if soft-skill are malleable or not. We will use the use of multi-grading to investigate the malleability of soft-skills. Multi-grading is the practice of putting different grades into one class. Especially in rural smaller schools, students of two grades often share the same classroom with only one teacher. This teacher, consequently, has to serve two grades instead of one. The literature, until now, has shown that there are cognitive benefits from multi-grading. The younger students benefit from having older peers. However, it is also likely that students have to spend more time working on their own. If a teacher is busy instructing one grade, the other grade will have to keep themselves occupied by working independently. As a result, it could be that students who attend a mixed classroom have a better work ethic. The dataset that you will use in both cases will be the longitudinal PRIMA-cohorten dataset. It records the student’s performance on high and low stakes tests and a teacher assessment of their soft-skills.n essence, you only will need to compare the mean soft-skills of multi-graded classes against non-multi-graded classes;

Also need to develop a hypothesis and write an abstract. very similar to the first literature. There also needs to be the use of STATA for the data analysis.

Starting literature:
Barbetta, G.P., Sorrenti, G. and Turati, G.,. Multigrading and child achievement.Journal of Human Resources

Checchi, D. and De Paola, M., 2018. The effect of multigrade classes on cognitive and non-cognitive skills. Causal evidence exploiting minimum class size rules in Italy.Economics of Education Review

Leuven, E. and Ronning, M., 2016. Classroom grade composition and pupil achievement.The Economic Journal,

Kautz, T., Heckman, J.J., Diris, R., Ter Weel, B. and Borghans, L., 2014.Fostering and measuring skills: Improving cognitive and non-cognitive skills to promote lifetime success