Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination

• p. 15 Section 4.4, second paragraph

  25 percent less than

• p. 35 Table 7, Experience breakdown

  two years or less

Judge's note: Viewed page 15 and Table 7 on page 35. The text says "25 percent less than two years and 25 percent at least 3 years"; the table rows are "some 50.2%", "two years or less 24.8%", "three years or more 25.0%". The two wordings place an ad asking for exactly two years differently; the table wording is the only one that leaves no gap before "three years or more". Loose paraphrase, minor.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 20 Section 4.5, paragraph 'In contrast, we find no effect in Boston'

  Chicago employer is located in a zip code with 10.5 percent African Americans; the average Boston employer

• p. 20 same paragraph

  in a zip code with 4.5 percent African Americans

• p. 38 Table 10, row 'Mean % African Americans in employer's zip code'

  .106

• p. 38 Table 10, same row, Boston

  .047

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Viewed page 20 and Table 10 on page 38. The table values are .082 / .106 / .047 with sample sizes 1930 / 1142 / 788, and the two city means reproduce the pooled .082, so the table is internally consistent; the text's 10.5 and 4.5 are not reachable from .106 and .047 by rounding. I searched the text for an explanation and found none: page 19 says the table row is "the mean fraction African Americans in the relevant sample". One possible innocent reading is that the text averages over employers and the table over sent resumes (Table 10 note 2 defines the sample as sent resumes), but the paper does not say so. The differences are 0.1 and 0.2 percentage points and do not affect the comparison being drawn, hence minor and a query to the authors. (The 10.5 percent on page 16 is a different quantity, the Census employment share in Chicago.)

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 29 Table 1, Chicago/Boston/Females in sales/Males rows, difference p-values

  (.0024)

• p. 29 Table 1 note 2

  a test of proportion testing the null hypothesis that the call-back rates are equal

• p. 32 Table 4 Panel A

  (.0391)

• p. 29 Table 1, Males row

  (.0283)

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Viewed Table 1 (page 29) and Table 4 (page 32) with their notes. Pooled two-sample z-test from the printed figures: Chicago 8.61% vs 5.81%, n 1359 each, z about 2.82, two-sided p about .0048, one-sided about .0024 (printed .0024). Males 9.19% vs 6.16%, n 577 and 552, z about 1.91, two-sided about .056, one-sided about .028 (printed .0283). Table 4 Panel A White names 8.80% vs 11.31%, n 1216 and 1229, z about 2.06, two-sided about .039 (printed .0391). So under a two-sided test of proportions the Table 1 p-values do not correspond, and under a one-sided test the Table 4 values do not; the two tables carry the same note wording. The exact variant of the test (pooled or unpooled, any correction) is not stated, and no supplement is among the files, so this is a question for the authors about which test and sidedness each table uses, not a statement that any value is wrong. The z values and tail probabilities were computed by hand from the normal distribution; only the differences are listed in the arithmetic field.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 31 Table 3, row 'Volunteering experience?'

  .42 .41 .41 .79 .03

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Viewed Table 3 on page 31. The two race subsamples are the same size (2445 + 2445 = 4890), so the pooled mean is the simple average of the two subsample means; both are below .415, so the pooled mean is below .415 and rounds to .41. The quality split (.79 and .03) gives .412 at the printed values but its rounding range reaches .417, so it does not settle the point on its own; the race split does. One of the three cells is off by .01; which one only the authors can say.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 3 Introduction, first paragraph

  many in this later camp

• p. 3 Introduction, para 1

  many in this later camp even feel

Judge's note: Crop of page 3 shows "many in this later camp"; the sentence refers back to the second of two groups ("Some argue yes ... Others argue ..."), so "latter" is meant.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 4 footnote 5

  such as why living a better

Judge's note: Read footnote 5 on the page 4 image; the word "in" is missing in the published text.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 5 footnote 6

  See Altonji and Blank 1999) for a detailed review

Judge's note: Confirmed on the page 5 image: footnote 6 reads "See Altonji and Blank 1999) for a detailed review". Not an extraction artefact.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 6 footnote 10

  Jowell and Precott-Clarke (1970)

• p. 27 References

  Jowell, R. and Prescott-Clark P

Judge's note: Both crops checked: footnote 10 on page 6 prints "Precott-Clarke" and the reference list on page 27 prints "Prescott-Clark". The two spellings differ in two places (missing s; final e), so at least one is misspelled; the correct form of the name is not something the files can settle.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 7 3.1, end of third paragraph

  This leaves us with a high quality and a low quality pool of resumes.13.

Judge's note: Crop of page 7 shows "resumes." followed by superscript 13 and a second period. Doubled punctuation in the published PDF.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 7 3.1

  we use resumes from Boston job seekers to form templates for the resumes to be sent out in Chicago and used the Chicago resumes

Judge's note: Crop of page 7 shows the sentence as quoted; the surrounding sentences are in the present tense ("we alter", "we use"), so "used" is a slip. Cosmetic.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 10 Section 3.5, first paragraph

  whether an applicants gets the job

Judge's note: Crop of page 10 shows "whether an applicants gets the job". Number disagreement.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 12 Section 4.1, paragraph 'As Table 2 indicates'

  (82.5 percent of the ads)

• p. 12 same paragraph

  only about 3.7 percent of employers

• p. 12 same paragraph

  about 87.5 percent of the help-wanted ads

• p. 30 Table 2

  82.56%

Judge's note: Page 12 text and Table 2 (page 30) checked. The table values round to 87.4, 82.6 and 3.8; the text gives 87.5, 82.5 and 3.7. Two of the three are hedged with "about" and all are within 0.13 points, so this is loose rounding or truncation rather than a wrong number. The 5.11 percent difference in the same paragraph matches 8.87 - 3.76.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 14 Section 4.2

  increases the likelihood of a call back by about .7 percentage point

Judge's note: Crop of page 14 shows "a call back" as a noun, with "callback" in the lines immediately above and below. The body text otherwise uses "callback" and the table notes "call-back". A spelling inconsistency only; either form is acceptable on its own.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 16 Section 4.4

  into one of six following categories

Judge's note: Viewed page 16; the text is printed as quoted. Six categories are then listed, so only the wording is at fault.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 17 Section 4.4

  33% higher chance than African American of being called back

Judge's note: Viewed page 17; printed as quoted. The plural is used in the neighbouring sentences ("Whites receive more callbacks than African Americans"). The % sign versus "percent" is a style point and not part of the confirmation.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 18 Section 4.5

  8 percent are in finance insurance and real estate

Judge's note: Viewed page 18 (text), page 19 (two later mentions with the comma) and Table 8 Panel B on page 36 ("Finance, insurance and real estate").

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 18 Section 4.5

  Federal Procurement and Data Center website

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: that the agency is called the Federal Procurement Data Center. The page prints the name as quoted. The only support inside the paper is footnote 43's address www.fpdc.gov, whose initials have no letter for "and"; that is suggestive, not proof. Authors to confirm the name.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 19 Section 4.5

  (Katz And Summers 1989)

Judge's note: Viewed page 19; printed with a capital "And". Other citations in the paper use lower case (for example "Aigner and Cain 1977, Lundberg and Startz 1983" on page 24). The reference-list entry on page 27 is "Katz, Lawrence F. and Lawrence H. Summers".

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 20 Section 4.5, second paragraph

  A 10 percentage point increases in the fraction African

• p. 20 same paragraph

  Such a 10 percentage point increases corresponds

Judge's note: Viewed page 20; both sentences are printed as quoted, in consecutive sentences of the same paragraph.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 23 Section 5.2

  This class of models struggle to explain the credentials

Judge's note: Viewed page 23; printed as quoted. The subject is the singular "This class". Cosmetic.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 24 Section 5.2

  uniformity of discrimination across occupation is also troubling

Judge's note: Viewed page 24; printed as quoted. The same paragraph ends "may vary quite a lot across occupations" and page 23 has "uniformity of discrimination across occupations and job requirements". The singular is readable as a generic noun, so this is a consistency point at most.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 30 Table 2, Whites Favored row

  5.93%

Judge's note: Viewed Table 2 on page 30. The bracketed counts sum to 1330 (1162+118+50), and every other cell equals count/1330 with ordinary rounding (e.g. 1098/1330 = 82.56, which rules out truncation as the convention). Only the 1W+0B cell is off, by 0.01 point. Trivial size, hence S4.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 34 Table 6 column header

  Log(per capita income)

• p. 31 Table 3, last zip code row

  Log(median per capita income)

Judge's note: Viewed Table 6 (page 34) and Table 3 (page 31); the text on page 13 also says 'log(median per capita income)'. The header drops 'median'. This is most likely an abbreviation of the same variable in a column heading, so it is only a labelling inconsistency.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 32 Table 4, note 1

  a White sounding name (raw 1) and African American

• p. 32 Table 4 note 1

  (raw 1) and African American sounding name (raw 2)

• p. 32 Table 4 note 1

  White sounding name (raw 1) and African American sounding name (raw 2)

• p. 32 Table 4 Note 1

  (raw 1)

Judge's note: Viewed page 32. The note reads 'raw 1' and 'raw 2' in the image; the same sentence goes on to say 'column 1' and 'column 2', so table rows are meant.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 35 Table 7, note 2

  call-back dummy on on African American name

• p. 35 Table 7 Note 2

  on on African American name

• p. 38 Table 10 note 1

  continous variable

• p. 39 Table 11 note 2

  betwen call-back rates

Judge's note: Viewed page 35; 'on on' is in the image. The two misspellings one reviewer added here ('continous', 'betwen') are handled under C042.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 38 Table 10, note 1

  for the continous variable

• p. 39 Table 11, note 2

  correlation betwen call-back rates

• p. 38 Table 10 Note 1

  continous variable

• p. 38

  estimated marginal change in probability for the continous variable

Judge's note: Viewed pages 38 and 39; both misspellings are in the page images.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 39 Table 11, African American Male, Darnell

  66.1 %

Judge's note: Viewed the crop and the full page 39. The Darnell cell reads "66.1 %" with a visible gap, while all other percentage cells in Table 11 are closed up. Cosmetic only.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 39 Table 11 Note 2

  betwen call-back rates

• p. 39

  correlation betwen call-back rates and mother education

Judge's note: Viewed the crop of the Table 11 notes and the full page 39. Note 2 prints "betwen" in the page image, so it is not an extraction artefact.

Second check: none (judge only)