Summary of the Paper
‘The Great Escape: Intergenerational Mobility in the US since 1994’ by Nathaniel G. Hilger presents the authors work on how he develops a new method to estimate intergenerational mobility (IM) in educational attainment on US census data spanning 1940-2000. Using the new method, the author measures directly for children still living with parents at ages 26-29 and indirectly for other children using imputation procedure that is validated in multiple datasets thereby spanning the full sample period (Hilger, 1). The method is dubbed ‘new’ because it is the first to estimate educational IM on birth cohorts spanning 1911-1971 in a consistent fashion. Not even in the literature review section provided by the author can we find any other literature that provided a platform for such estimates.
Main Comments and Suggestions
It is superlative that in the 21st Century innovations geared towards digging deeper on the events that occurred in mid-20th Century still exist. The author does not only provide a useful estimation method to the American society and the world at large but also sends a strong message on the need to look at the past before predicting the future. The method is so accurate that the author develops a semi-parametric adjustment for ‘missing’ members of the sample population such as the independent children (Hilger, 2). Besides, it provides for the examination and re-examination of conspiracies like it is the case when the author examines the several potential explanations for post-1940 IM gains. The method provided by the paper is also considerably important as it opens up many new possibilities for research on IM over time, space and subgroups due to the wide availability of census data. The comments and suggestions described in this section provide an opportunity for the author to improve the quality and usefulness of the paper.
Prior Literature
In a paper like this one, the section dubbed ‘Prior Literature’, also known as literature review, is expected to provide highlights of the work of other individuals that is related to that of the author. This work includes theories and all categories of ideas that may be closely related to the ideas generated by the author. Further, the author is expected to provide a statement of why his/ her work is different from that of the others or the reason as to why he/ she is still motivated to conduct his research in spite of the efforts made by other individuals on the same work.
In this paper, the author provided an incomplete ‘Prior Literature’ section by singly focusing on the previous work relating to intergenerational mobility in the US. The author focused on the work of Hertz (2007) whose research was typically focused on income mobility, Olivetti and Paserman (2015) who focused on estimating trends in occupational income mobility, and Nybom and Stuhler (2014) whose work was based on the works of ancient generations that existed before the 20th Century and what the reader should expect. None of these literature review sections related to the discovery of methods or attempts to discover such methods. In spite of the fact that the basis of the paper is to explain the discovery of a new method that can be used in analyzing IM mobility in the US since 1940, the paper remains silent on any other methods that could have been discovered and their effectiveness.
Inadequate Historical Data
As provided in the mini-abstract section of the paper, the main intention of the author is to use the paper as a platform to expound on his newly discovered method. A detailed historical background relating to major discoveries of methods of the same kind would, therefore, be a major step towards developing a successful paper. The author should not only provide details relating to the history of the subject; IM in the US since 1940, but also the history of attempts to come up with a method of the same kind. Even the scope of the historical background provided is not deep enough to provide a firm foundation for the reader and to prepare them for the new method. The placement of the historical background also forms part of the papers misfortunes as it has been integrated with the introduction.
In the paper, unlike other papers of the same kind, the history of IM in the US since 1940 completely dominates the history of new methods. Probably the author realized that there were no previous attempts to develop a method of the same kind. Even so, the author should have recognized other new discoveries that are in the same field that relate to IM in the US. If such discoveries do not exist, the author is expected to acknowledge this fact in his paper. The history of such a phenomena is considerably important to the reader as it provides the basis on which the reader moves from the unknown to known. Inadequate historical background, therefore, places the reader in a position that he/ she cannot comprehend the new discoveries and their significance.
Sectional Mix-up
A typical profession paper is expected to provide a superlative alignment between the subtopic or heading and the content. This means that if the subheading is ‘Introduction,' the content of that particular section should simply introduce the reader to the subject matter. Other discussions should be avoided in this section and provided later in the paper. In the ‘Introduction’ section of this paper, there is an ideological mix-up where the author presents a brief introduction and a lot of history. In the ‘Introduction’ section, therefore, content pertaining history dominates that which pertains introduction. It is in the introductory section where the historical background is outlined in details such that the reader gets confused on whether it was an introductory or a historical section.
The main aim of an introductory section is to ensure that the reader’s attention has been captured right from the moment he/ she begins to read the paper to the end. Through this period, nothing should complicate his/ her ability to understand the paper because when things get complicated at the preliminary stage, most of the readers assume that it is the papers nature and, therefore, opt to quit it at this early stage. As such, it is essential for the authors to remove any discussion that does not seek to introduce primarily the reader to the paper. The discussions are, however, not entirely wrong and should be placed in a different section just after the introduction. They are only wrongly placed but not entirely wrong. Changing their placement would, therefore, make them right and improve the ‘introduction’ section’s usefulness to the reader.
Lack of Summative Data Presentation
Presentations provide a superlative manner of data provision for easy comprehension by the reader. Presentations summarize long theoretical descriptions into a single simple and easy to understand figure that is reader friendly. They include diagrammatic expressions, tables, figures, charts and graphs amongst others where data is comprehensively summed up. In typical professional papers, theoretical work dominates presentations but with an extent that is as large as it is in this paper. Readers undergo a less hard time when the authors present their work in tables, charts, graphs and other methods of summative presentations than when it is provided in theoretical form without diagrammatic summaries.
Among the main data that could have been summarized in figurative form include how the new method is used IM data and the extent to which it is effective and efficient. Had some of the data provided in theoretical form been provided in figurative or diagrammatic expressions, the data could have gotten more readers and more individuals who are ready and willing to ‘assimilate’ the information. Had it been the case, readers would have been placed in a position to even skim through the work and source considerable knowledge from it. By avoiding this part of the paper, a considerable portion of the readers that would have considered reading the whole paper was lost. It is important for the author to ensure that in his writing skills, he utilizes all the common senses of a man with seeing without meditating being a major one. It is through such utilization that the reader is kept alert throughout the course of his reading activity.
Minor Comments and Suggestions
The abstract is too brief to reach the standards of a satisfactory abstract. A typical abstract should be at least half a page long to provide the reader with a reasonable overview of the papers content. It should seek to inform the reader, in brief, the research focus, the data sources, data reconstruction methods, results and findings and the key findings and recommendations of the paper.
On page two in the last paragraph, a sentence reads: ‘I replicate findings of lower IM in the South for both whites and blacks in recent years, but show these differences are small in historical context after many decades of regional convergence’ (Hilger, 2). This sentence seems to be lacking an article. The author should review it in an attempt to better the paper.
The ‘prior literature’ section also lacks the essential flow of information from literature to literature and final sub-conclusion. The author has reviewed two previous literature followed with a conclusion and recommendation for his new method. After that, an additional previous literature is discussed making the whole section lack the essential flow of information.
The second paragraph on page six begins with the following sentence: ‘Educational attainment is based on the most detailed IPUMS variable EDUCD and represents the highest grade completed in all years’ (Hilger, 6). The two abbreviations ‘IPUMS’ and ‘EDUCD’ have not been defined anywhere in this paper. This makes it difficult for a new learner to comprehend. For a typical paper of this kind, the author is expected to define the abbreviation either during the first time when he uses them in the paper or in a special section named ‘acronyms.'
Work Cited
Hilger, Nathaniel. The Great Escape: Intergenerational Mobility in the US since 1940. 1st ed. 1050 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2015. Print.
