Here is an article about it. I hope you find it useful.
[Bilingual Reading] The British version of Three Movements of Meng Mu
For a long time, Britain has been implementing a strange school system. Rich parents can buy a qualification for a prestigious school as long as they buy a house near the school, instead of paying for the school themselves. This situation is not very satisfactory, so there are two logical reactions: one is to ask parents to give money to the school. The other is to prevent people from buying houses near schools through the real estate market. Instead, they draw lots to distribute from a wider area. Brighton and Howard are about to make this bold new attempt.
Britain has long supported a strange school system, in which wealthy parents buy an education in a better public school by giving money to homeowners who live near the school, rather than giving money to the school itself. This is not very satisfactory, and there are two logical reactions. One is to ask parents to give money to the school. The other is to prevent people from buying the location of good schools through the real estate market, but to allocate locations from a wider area through lottery. This bold new experiment is about to be carried out in Brighton and Hof.
The anger of some parents is understandable: they pay for the service (albeit indirectly), but suddenly find that the service must be distributed in a lottery-like way. Their house may depreciate in value. Maybe little Jeremy can't go to that good school at all. But like parents all over the country, parents in Brighton who lost the right to choose a school are also worried about the same problem: if the school allows too many "bad" children to enter school, Jeremy's grades will be affected.
Some parents are understandably angry: they pay for a service (albeit indirectly) and suddenly find it distributed like a lottery. Their house may depreciate in value. Little Jeremy may not go to that good school at all. But the deprived parents in Brighton are also worried about what parents all over the country are worried about: if their school allows too many "wrong" types of children to enter school, Jeremy's performance will be affected.
What parents are worried about is what economists call the "peer effect". Peer effect is the result of being with a bad partner all day. However, the evidence of this influence is not as much as British parents think.
What these parents are worried about is what economists call the "peer effect". Peer effect is what happens when you are with the wrong person. However, there is less evidence of their existence than parents in this country think.
This is the difficulty. Jeremy will behave well if he plays with "good" children all day. Why? The obvious explanation is that he behaves well because his peers have a positive influence on him, but it's like assuming that he chooses those peers or lets them be chosen because he is also a "good" boy. These two hypotheses are equally credible. John? John Terry plays football well because he is surrounded by excellent players, or because he plays football well?
This is the difficulty. If Jeremy hangs out with "good" kids and behaves well, why? The obvious explanation is that he did well because his peers had a good influence on him, but it is also possible that he chose those peers or let them choose him because he is also one of the "good" children. Does john terry play well because he is surrounded by great players, or because he plays well and is surrounded by great players?
Clever researchers can find out some of these effects. Economist Bruce? Sacerdote used the same method that medical researchers used to test a new headache treatment: random test. He found that the roommates of Dartmouth College students were basically randomly assigned. Some choices used by universities are based on gender, smoking or not and timetable-but in most cases, dormitory allocation is the result of lottery.
Clever researchers can solve some of these effects. Bruce Sacerdote, an economist, used the same technique used by medical researchers to test a new headache drug: a randomized trial. He realized that students' roommates at Dartmouth College were basically randomly assigned. There are some choices at work based on gender, smoking and working time preference, but in most cases, these tasks are the result of lottery.
Sacerdote found a slight (statistically significant) peer effect. If your roommate's GPA is higher than yours, your own grades will also improve. Like what? Training? PA score is at the top of the distribution chart, and your score is often about 5% higher than the average. If their grades are 20% lower than the average, then your grades are 1% lower than the average. Sacerdote doesn't know why, but since students don't have the right to choose roommates, it must be a real peer effect.
Sacerdote found a moderate-and statistically powerful-peer effect. Being assigned to a roommate with a higher GPA will improve your own GPA. If your roommate is at the top of the grade point distribution, you will be 5% higher than the average. If they are 20% below average, you will be 1% below average. Sacerdote doesn't know why, but since students don't choose peers, it must be a genuine peer effect.
However, most studies on peer effect are not very detailed. Thomas? Nechiba and Jack? Jake Vigdor wrote an insightful paper based on his research on public schools in North Carolina, USA, which emphasized these omissions. They put forward some seemingly strong evidence to prove the peer effect, but then they proved that these obvious effects were working even before the peer appeared. In other words, by observing Jeremy's fifth-grade classmates, you can infer the performance of Jeremy and other fourth-grade classmates. Similarly, John? The standard of Terry's teammates shows that Terry was an excellent player before joining Chelsea.
However, most studies on peer effect are not so careful. Thomas Nechyba and Jake Vigdor emphasized these pitfalls in a clever paper based on the study of public schools in North Carolina. They provided strong evidence of what seemed to be the peer effect, but later proved that these obvious effects were already working before the peer appeared. In other words, by observing Jeremy's fifth-grade classmates, you can get the performance of Jeremy when he gets along with different classmates in the fourth grade. Similarly, the quality of john terry's teammates also shows that Terry was an excellent football player before joining Chelsea.
Nechyba and Vigdor also said that once they took the quality of education into account, the peer effect disappeared. Students with smart companions also have excellent teachers. Maybe people in Brighton and Howard should worry less about Jeremy meeting an inappropriate classmate and more about him meeting an inappropriate teacher.
Nechiba and Vigdor also show that once they consider the quality of teaching, the peer effect will disappear. Students with smart peers also have better teachers. Perhaps the good people of Brighton and Hoff should worry less about Jeremy going out with the wrong classmates and more about him going out with the wrong teachers.