Rubric For Econometrics Paper and Presentation

Professor Robert J. Lemke
Department of Economics and Business
Lake Forest College
Fall 2008

PAPER RUBRIC

There are 18 categories listed below. You will receive between 1 and 5 points for each category, except for the Question & Answer and the Results Section categories for which you will receive between 2 and 10 points. Thus, your overall score will be between 20 and 100 points. Failure to submit a paper by the deadline will receive 0 points.

Style: One inch margins, 11 point Times Roman font, double-spaced throughout. Bold and numbered section titles. Extra blank line before each section title.

  1. All components in the above list.
  2. One error in the above list.
  3. Two errors in the above list.
  4. Three errors in the above list.
  5. Four errors in the above list.

Page Numbering: Ten point Times Roman font for page numbers placed at the bottom - center of each page. Neither the title page nor the first page of text receives a page number. The second page of text receives the number 2. All remaining pages are numbered consecutively.

  1. All components in the above list.
  2. One error in the above list.
  3. Two errors in the above list.
  4. Three errors in the above list.
  5. Four errors in the above list.

Spelling:

  1. No misspelled words.
  2. One or two misspelled words.
  3. Three or four misspelled words.
  4. Five or six misspelled words.
  5. Seven or more misspelled words.

Punctuation:

  1. No punctuation errors.
  2. One or two punctuation errors.
  3. Three or four punctuation errors.
  4. Five or six punctuation errors.
  5. Seven or more punctuation errors.

Informative Title: Your paper must include an informative title.

  1. An informative title, for example: The Relationship between Education and Earnings across Occupations
  2. A less informative title, for example: The Relationship between Education and Earnings
  3. A less informative title, for example: Education and Earnings
  4. A less informative title, for example: An Empirical Study of Education
  5. No title

Title Page: Title, 14 point Times Roman font, centered toward the top of the page. Include your name, email address, and date. Include an abstract of 100 to 200 words. Include three or four keywords. Include three or four appropriate Journal of Economic Literature classification codes.

  1. All components in the above list.
  2. One error in the above list.
  3. Two errors in the above list.
  4. Three errors in the above list.
  5. Four errors in the above list.

Abstract: The abstract must introduce your question(s) and provide a brief summary of your answer(s). The abstract should also try to draw the reader into the paper by demonstrating why the question is interesting.

  1. An introduction that provides both aspects listed above under 200 words.
  2. An introduction that provides both aspects listed above in more than 200 words.
  3. An introduction that provides only one of the aspects listed above under 200 words.
  4. An introduction that provides only one of the aspects listed above in more than 200 words.
  5. An introduction that fails to provide either of the aspects listed above.

Introduction: The introduction clearly introduces your question and demonstrates why it is an interesting question. It also provides the context for showing where your question fits into the literature. (If you find it useful, you can include a Literature Review section following your introduction that provides the context, but most Econ 330 papers can be written so that the literature review is incorporated into the introduction.) The introduction must also introduce your data very briefly, and provide a quick summary of your results.

  1. An introduction that provides a clear, comprehensive, and accurate understanding of your question -- its importance, how it relates to the literature, and your empirical answer.
  2. An introduction that fails to provide context relating your paper to the literature.
  3. An introduction that fails to introduce the data.
  4. An introduction that fails to summarize your main results or to demonstrate why your question is interesting.
  5. An introduction that fails to clearly introduce your question.

Data: The data section identifies the data source completely and accruately. You must specify all cuts you made on the data (and why). It must define every variable you use/create. And you must present the summary statistics for each variable. At a minimum, the summary statistics include the mean, standard deviation, minimum, and maximum for each variable. For some projects, however, you may want/need to present more summary statistics, such as summary statistics separately for men and women or a histogram of an average value over time.

  1. I have a clear, accruate, and comprehensive understanding of your data and variables.
  2. At most two variables are not described well in the text, but the table of descriptive statistics clarifies the definitions.
  3. There is one unresolvable inconsistency between the text and the table of descriptive statistics.
  4. There are at most three unresolvable inconsistencies between the text and the table of descriptive statistics.
  5. I don't have confidence that your data represent what the paper claims they represent.

Identification Strategy: The identification strategy section conveys to the reader how you will ascertain your answer. You need to inform the reader of what model(s) you are going to estimate; how you will estimate it (i.e., what econometric procedure you will use); and how the estimated coefficients will produce an answer to your question.

  1. I have a clear, accurate, and comprehensive understanding of your econometric producedure and how the results of this procedure will be used to answer your question.
  2. The paper describes the identification strategy, but does not do so in an efficient or clear manner.
  3. The model and econometric technique are clear, but the identification strategy (i.e., why what you propose doing will provide an answer to your question) is not clear.
  4. The model is clear, but the econometric technique nor identification strategy are clear.
  5. The identification strategy is not clear.

Results: The results section must be linked to one or more tables that present your regression results. The section then "talks" the reader through either all of the results or at least all of the important results as they pertain to your question. The results section needs to convince the reader of your result. It must include a discussion of statistical significance as well as economic significance. Tables of regression results must include the number of observations, make clear the dependent variable and the estimation procedure, and indicate statistically significant estimated coefficients.

  1. I have a clear, accurate, and comprehensive understanding of the answer to the question, in terms of both statistical and economic significance.
  2. I understand the answer to the paper's question because of an addequate but not complete description in the text coupled with the regression results presented in the tables.
  3. I understand the answer to the paper's question because of the regression results presented in the tables, but the text fails to addequately explain where the reader finds the answers in the tables.
  4. I have a vague understanding of the answer to the paper's question, but I am not positive of the answer nor do I know where to find the answer in the table(s).
  5. I have no understanding of empirical results that provide an answer to the paper's question.

Future Research: The future research section describes how the paper could be improved given another semester to work on it. Possible improvements are a better question, a better data set and/or a better econometric technique. Be precise in your suggested improvements. If you could use better data, for example, say what feature of the data it would be useful to have improved and then say which data set exists with that new feature. Alternatively, if you think there is a better econometric technique to use, find out more about the technique and say explicitely why it is better.

  1. I have a clear and thorough understanding of the proposed improvements.
  2. I have a fairly good understanding of the proposed improvements with just one or two remaining questions/concerns.
  3. I understand where the paper could be improved, but I have a vague idea how those improvements could be made.
  4. I have a vague understanding of why and how the paper could be improved.
  5. There is no future research section or no serious suggestions for improvement.

Conclusion: The conclusion must re-present the paper's primary question(s) and its answer(s). The conclusion must be written so that a reader, if she or he only reads the conclusion, still understands the paper (almost) completely -- what the question was, how it was answered, and what the answer was.

  1. I have a clear and accurate understanding of the question, how it was answered, and what the answer was.
  2. The conclusion gives a fairly good description of the question and answer, but omits one or two small aspects.
  3. The conclusion gives a good description of the question and answer, but omits one or two larger aspects.
  4. The conclusion offers a vague description of the question and/or answer.
  5. The conclusion mentions the general topic, but fails to identify a particular question or answer.

Writing: Your paper must be well-written and clear. Each paragraph should move the paper along with a clear purpose. Each section should have its own purpose, be well-motivated, and end with clear knowledge imparted to the reader. As the reader, I should never wonder what is being said or why it is being said. You do not want to write a paper in which, when I am reading it, I ever ask myself, "What does this sentence mean?" or "What is the point of this paragraph/argument?" or say to myself "I don't understand what is being said." Each instant of such a question to myself is an instant of unclarity.

  1. A consistently well-written and clear paper.
  2. One instance of unclarity. (Maximum of one instance per paragraph.)
  3. Two instances of unclarity.
  4. Three instances of unclarity.
  5. Four instances of unclarity.

Question & Answer: After reading your paper, I will reflect upon your primary empirical question and answer. I should be able to summarize your question and answer very easily to myself or to my colleagues.

  1. I have a clear understanding of your question and answer.
  2. I have a clear understanding of your question, but the answer is a bit unclear.
  3. I have a clear understanding of your question, but I do not understand your answer.
  4. I can reiterate your topic, but not a question exactly.
  5. I cannot reiterate your question even generally.

Citations: Citations in the text should refer to the author(s) by last name, followed by the year of the publication in parentheses. Or, if the text does not refer to the author directly, then the author(s) last name(s) and year of publication should be included in parentheses, separated by a comma. If mulitple sources are listed, separate them by a semicolon. If a citation has two authors, list both last names. If a citation has three or more authors, list the first author's last name follwed by "et al.". For example:

There is a large literature showing that the cost of child care plays a major role in the labor market decisions of women with children (Anderson and Levine, 1999; Chaplin et al., 2000).

Heckman (1974) provides the static theory in the standard context of a mother choosing her hours worked when facing a specific child care market.
You should use direct quotations as little as possible. If you do use quotes, then place a comma following the year and include the page number, such as Heckman (1974, p. 23). If you quote more than one line of text, then you should separate the quote from the text with blank lines at the beginning and the end of the quotation, and include double margins.

  1. Correct citations.
  2. One or two incorrect citations.
  3. Three or four incorrect citations.
  4. Five or six incorrect citations.
  5. Seven or more incorrect citations.

References: You must have at least six references cited in your paper. List all of your references on a separate page (or pages) immediately following your conclusion (and before your tables). You should not use web references, and do not include when or where or how you obtained the reference. Just cite them as is common in the economics literature. Be consistent in how you present references. For example:

References

Anderson, Patricia M. and Phillip B. Levine, “Child Care and Mothers’ Employment Decisions,” NBER Working Paper 7058, March, 1999.

Averett, Susan L., H. Elizabeth Peters and Donald M. Waldman, “Tax Credits, Labor Supply, and Child Care,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 79(1), pp. 125-135, February, 1997.

Gustafsson, Siv, and Frank Stafford, “Child Care Subsidies and Labor Supply in Sweden,” Journal of Human Resources, 27(1), pp. 204-230, Winter, 1992.

Heckman, James J., “Effects of Child-Care Programs on Women’s Work Effort,” Journal of Political Economy, 82(2), Special Issue, pp. S136-S163, March/April, 1974.

Hofferth, Sandra L., “Comment on The Importance of Child Care Costs to Women’s Decision Making,” in The Economics of Child Care, in David M. Blau ed., Russell Sage Foundation, New York, pp. 119-126, 1991.

  1. All components mentioned above are consistently represented in the list of references.
  2. One component is consistently misrepresented, or one or two references have mistakes.
  3. Two components are consistently misrepresented, or three or four references have mistakes.
  4. Three components are consistently misrepresented.
  5. Four or more components are consistently misrepresented, or web references are used.

Tables: Tables and graphs are to be included at the end of the paper, following your reference section. One table or graph per page. Each table and graph is numbered consecutively and includes a title. Each should also include a note beneath it. The standard rule is that tables and graphs must be understandable, more or less, without reading the paper. Thus, do not include variable names, but rather write out what each variable means. Tables must be clear and informative. In the text, be sure to refer to tables by their number. For example, you might write: "In Table 2, we see that ...". You can check out how I present tables and refer to them in any of my papers (other than the voting and rjv papers) that I have posted to the web at campus.lakeforest.edu/lemke/index.html.

  1. All tables are clear, understandable, and labeled appropriately.
  2. One table is not clear or neat, or one aspect of tables is routinely misrepresented.
  3. Two tables are not clear or neat, or two aspects of tables are routinely misrepresented.
  4. Three tables are not clear or neat, or three aspects of tables are routinely misrepresented.
  5. Four or more tables are not clear or neat, or four aspects of tables are routinely misrepresented.



PRESENTATION RUBRIC

There are 6 categories listed below, each worth between 1 to 5 or between 2 to 10 points for each category. Your overall score will be between 10 and 50 points. Failure to make a presentation at your scheduled time will result in being awarded 0 points.

Style All presenters should be well-dressed, speak at a reasonable pace, have a good presence (don't fidget), have good eye-contact, and be serious.

  1. All five components listed above.
  2. Four of the five components.
  3. Three of the five components.
  4. Two of the five components.
  5. One of the five components.

Slides All presenters must give a PowerPoint presentation. The presenter must have command of PowerPoint. PowerPoint slides need to be informative, free of errors, and easy to read.

  1. PowerPoint slides were informative, free of errors, and easy to read.
  2. PowerPoint slides were below-standard in one of the three categories listed above.
  3. PowerPoint slides were below-standard in two of the three categories listed above.
  4. PowerPoint slides were below-standard in all three of the categories listed above.
  5. PowerPoint was not used in the presentation.

Timing The presentation, before Q & A, should be between 17 and 20.

  1. The presentation was between 17 and 20 minutes.
  2. The presentation was 15, 16, 21, or 22 minutes.
  3. The presentation was 13, 14, or 23 minutes.
  4. The presentation was 10, 11, or 12 minutes.
  5. The presentation was under 10 minutes or over 23 minutes.

Econometric Results The presentation must present clear econometric results.

  1. I have a clear understanding of estimation coefficients and their interpretation.
  2. I have a clear understanding of most estimation coefficients and their interpretation.
  3. I have a clear understanding of estimation coefficients but not of their interpretation (though their interpretation was presented).
  4. I have a clear understanding of estimation coefficients but not of their interpretation (because their interpretation was never presented).
  5. Estimated coeffiecients were never presented.

Policy Implications The presentation must mention policy implications of the econometric results. That is, how can the estimates be used to make decisions.

  1. I have a clear and accurate understanding of the topic and the policy implications.
  2. I have a clear and accurate understanding of the topic, but there are one or two parts of the policy prescriptions that remain unclear.
  3. I have a clear and accurate understanding of the topic, but there are three or more parts of the policy prescriptions that remain unclear.
  4. I have a general idea of the topic.
  5. I have no idea of the general topic.

Questions and Answers Each presenter must take questions from the audience.

  1. All questions were clearly answered and in a timely manner.
  2. All questions were clearly answered, but some could have been answered more directly.
  3. Most but not all questions were clearly answered.
  4. Most but not all questions were clearly answered, and some could have been answered more directly.
  5. None of the questions were answered well.