EC410C/EC639 Project: Grading Criteria (Paper and Presentation)
1. (20%) Description of paper
Copyright By PowCoder代写 加微信 powcoder
a. Basically, did you summarize the main question and findings of the paper well? Is it clear, without reading the original paper, what the paper you chose was about?
b. Important: what is the contribution of the paper you chose, relative to other papers in the field? You should figure this out from reading their paper (esp the introduction), and from further literature review from you (if needed).
2. (20%) Description of methods and data
a. Clearly describe the empirical methodology here, so that I know that you understand what exactly they’ve done (in terms of FE, IVs, diff-in-diff, construction of key variables (i.e. labour market versions of industry shocks))
b. Be sure to describe WHY they use certain empirical methods (why do they use this IV strategy? What problems are they trying to solve with it?)
c. Describe their main data sources clearly. Some papers have many data sources, but you should at least focus on the data sources for their main outcome variables and their main right-hand-side variables. If you want to include a table of each variable or data source and exactly where they come from, that might be helpful, but if you can describe them sufficiently well in the text of your paper that could be enough as well.
3. (30%) Replication exercise quality
a. Did you reasonably conduct the baseline replication exercise, trying to reproduce the table you chose with the provided data and code?
b. How you extend the replication analysis beyond what the original paper did to include other controls, other specifications, FE, etc? Marks will be in part given here based on the ambition and challenge of the extension as well as whether this extension was well-explained and justified (i.e. was there a solid reason based on the paper to do what you did?).
c. Did you also reasonably describe how you did the replication exercises (both baseline and extended)? i.e., was it straightforward and involved you just directly loading the data in and running the relevant commands? Was their code and data well-labelled and easy to follow? What problems or issues did you face? Similarly, describe what you did to extend the analysis.
d. How well did you describe the replication extension exercise that you are not doing, why you think this is a good exercise to do, and how you would do it if you had the data and time?
e. Points will be partly based not only on your replication quality, but in how you describe your replications in the paper.
f. Note: it’s okay to not exactly produce the table of results from the paper, but ONLY if you did not make any errors in the exercise itself. I will judge this based on your log files and your description. If there is some difference in results because the original authors made some data or code error, or because you think there was some other problem then that’s great! Describing these issues in your paper will be great for showing me you did a good job.
4. (20%) Strengths and weaknesses of the paper + conclusion
a. Clearly express what you think this paper does well (identification? New lessons learned about an important trade issue? New setting/context?) This could come from their methods, data, question, or other.
b. What does this paper do badly? Where were the weaknesses in their analysis?
i. Could be methodological (i.e. they didn’t include important control variables, their IV does not satisfy exclusion restriction), or motivation/contribution based (there are already many papers like this, the question is uninteresting because X, the setting is too narrow and will not be useful about learning about how trade works in other countries/time periods, etc)
5. (10%) Writing quality
a. Is the paper well-written, clear and easy to follow, and free of typos and grammatical errors?
Presentation (15 minute time limit)
1. (25%) Description of the paper’s motivation, research question, contribution (suggestion: 4-5 minutes)
a. Clearly describe this paper’s question, what they’re looking at
b. Clearly outline their main findings; what do they find, in terms of their main results and what they find as answers to their questions
c. What is the contribution of this paper, relative to the literature? What are they doing that is different?
d. Keep in mind: nobody in the audience will have read this paper. Present to your classmates, who have learned all the trade that you have in this class, but have not read your actual paper or done the replication.
2. (25%) Description of paper’s methods and data (suggestion: 4-5 minutes)
a. You want to present their main specifications + empirical strategy used to identify causal effects (FE, IV, etc.). Briefly describe, if possible, the motivation behind these methods (at least their main method, i.e. the IV in ADH)
b. Clearly describe their main data sets so that the audience understands what data the paper uses in its regressions, and importantly what data you will be using in your replication
c. If there are multiple specifications and data sources in the paper, at least be sure to describe the main data sources and methods that you will cover in your replication
3. (15%) Explanation of replication exercise (suggestion: 2-3 minutes)
a. Was it clear how your replication went, based on your presentation?
b. Did you clearly describe any difficulties, or how well it went?
c. Did you clearly and persuasively describe your extension exercise and why it was a good idea to do, as well as what you found?
d. If you had time (optional otherwise for the presentation): did you clearly and describe well your final replication exercise (the one you did not do but only suggested), and why you thought this was something that was worth doing based on the paper and table chosen?
4. (15%) Strengths and weaknesses of the paper (suggestion: 2-3 minutes)
a. Same as above for the written paper
b. Importantly, keep in mind that the audience has not read the paper yet. When describing what you thought was good and bad about the paper, that the audience can follow along based on how you described the paper, and its methods, from before. Do not say stuff like, “I thought on page 36 that they did not describe their *insert obscure result here) well enough”.
5. (20%) Quality of the presentation/presentation style
a. Was your presentation easy to follow (visually and orally)?
b. Was the presentation overall well-planned and structured?
c. Did you often stumble or have very cluttered/unclear slides?
d. Did you handle questions from me/others well?
e. Did you go over the time limit?
程序代写 CS代考 加微信: powcoder QQ: 1823890830 Email: powcoder@163.com