Learn

Learning preferences

Make learning more comfortable. Changes apply immediately.

Enlarges page content, including diagrams and their labels. You can also use your browser’s zoom.

Choose the colours that are easiest for you to distinguish. Applies to lesson diagrams and lab plots. Labels, shapes, hatching and line patterns also distinguish meanings. Source photographs and raw image brightness stay unchanged; mask-only views are available for image overlays.

ExampleComparisonSample link

Saved in this browser on this device. Preferences are separate from progress backups.

Sociology and social institutions · Institutional evidence: hiring

Audit a real hiring-discrimination experiment

Compare randomized name signals with interview callbacks, then distinguish an absolute gap, a relative gap and an unmeasured hiring outcome.

Your task: Draw signal → screening → callback → interview → offer. Mark what was manipulated, measured and not observed. Calculate both fictional comparisons, then write a bounded claim about the actual study and a test of a rival mechanism.

Open the investigation · Read the explanation · Your saved evidence

Starting recap and vocabulary

Random assignment concerns who receives a condition; random sampling concerns who enters a study. An outcome measure, a social mechanism and a policy judgment are different parts of an argument.

Institutional gatekeeping
A process that controls access to a later opportunity, such as screening before an interview.
Percentage-point difference
Subtraction of two percentages, distinct from dividing a difference by a reference rate.
Signal validity
Whether a manipulated cue conveys the construct the researcher intends, and what else it may convey.
01 · TRY

What does a callback difference reveal about an institutional gate?

Draw signal → screening → callback → interview → offer. Mark what was manipulated, measured and not observed. Calculate both fictional comparisons, then write a bounded claim about the actual study and a test of a rival mechanism.

Label a five-step hiring diagram and repair the claim “50% more callbacks means 50% more people got jobs.”

Make a provisional claim

Loading saved evidence…

Inspect evidence and test an explanation

The investigation controls appear when your local evidence is ready.

04 · UNDERSTAND

Connect evidence and mechanism

Investigate the institution

Compare randomized name signals with interview callbacks, then distinguish an absolute gap, a relative gap and an unmeasured hiring outcome. What does a callback difference reveal about an institutional gate?

Institutional gatekeeping can create unequal opportunities before an interview occurs. An audit isolates a signal at one gate rather than measuring every source of labor-market inequality.

Random assignment reduces systematic differences in the assigned signal groups. It does not make a historically and geographically bounded set of employers representative of every labor market.

A callback is neither a job offer nor a wage. Similar statistical disparities can arise through different decision processes; distinguishing those mechanisms needs additional evidence.

Distinguish authentic evidence from the practice ledger

Randomized resume experiment

Researchers submitted fictional resumes to newspaper job advertisements in Boston and Chicago, randomly assigning names intended to signal perceived race. The report describes approximately 50% more interview callbacks for White-associated names.

This primary research summary concerns differential treatment at a specific hiring stage in the study setting. Names are signals, not a biological measure or complete account of identity. The short summary does not supply individual records or a full uncertainty analysis.

Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan — NBER working paper 9873, July 2003; published AER 2004. This is an attributed summary, not reproduced article text.

Published article and replication reference

The published article identifies its response as callbacks for interviews and links replication materials. Its design manipulates a perceived signal while varying resume characteristics; it does not follow real applicants through wages or job tenure.

The working-paper and journal versions report the same study, not two independent replications. Read methods and coding documentation before using the replication package.

Bertrand and Mullainathan, American Economic Review 94(4), 991–1013 — September 2004. This is an attributed summary, not reproduced article text.

Fictional calculation packet

For arithmetic practice only, condition A receives 12 callbacks from 100 resumes and B receives 8 from 100. A second fictional employer set gives 6 callbacks from 50 in A and 8 from 100 in B.

These invented counts are not the study counts. Hold the outcome definition fixed, label both denominators and calculate differences before interpreting them.

Inspect the fictional ledger

Fictional practice data, not the study results. Scroll horizontally on narrow screens.
Fictional conditionCallbacksResumesRate to calculate
First set A12100Divide callbacks by resumes
First set B8100Use the same unit
Second set A650Do not compare counts alone
Second set B8100Identify the reference rate

Label each arrow in assigned name signal → screening decision → callback → interview → offer as manipulated, observed or not observed. The arrow represents a possible process, not proof that every step occurred.

Work the comparison

Fictional A: 12/100 = 12%; B: 8/100 = 8%. The absolute difference is 4 percentage points. Relative to B, (12−8)/8 = 50%. Reversing the reference gives (12−8)/12 ≈ 33.3% fewer for B. Neither statement changes the observed counts.

Make an inspectable artifact

Draw signal → screening → callback → interview → offer. Mark what was manipulated, measured and not observed. Calculate both fictional comparisons, then write a bounded claim about the actual study and a test of a rival mechanism.

Record your diagram or table as a written trace in the claim field. Number each link, identify the relevant source ID and distinguish measured evidence from a proposed mechanism. Save a capture before revising your interpretation.

Test a stronger claim

Cite the real research and distinguish it from the invented arithmetic packet. Explain the gate, randomization, denominator, absolute/relative comparison, one unmeasured outcome and the extra evidence needed to identify a mechanism.

Independent extension

Inspect the linked research methods and replication documentation. Propose how to account for multiple applications to the same employer and audit signal validity. Explain why reanalyses of the same records are not independent replications.

Use the supplied records and public research descriptions. Do not conduct deceptive hiring or housing applications, collect classmates’ sensitive information, or treat the fictional ledger as a real effect estimate.

Worked example

Fictional A: 12/100 = 12%; B: 8/100 = 8%. The absolute difference is 4 percentage points. Relative to B, (12−8)/8 = 50%. Reversing the reference gives (12−8)/12 ≈ 33.3% fewer for B. Neither statement changes the observed counts.

Check the reasoning, then transfer it

Loading response history…

Keep your evidence and choose a next step

Loading saved lesson status…