Nothing is known about the effectiveness of defaults when moving the target outcomes requires substantial effort. We conduct two field experiments to investigate how defaults fare in such situations: we change the university exam sign-up procedure in two study programs to “opt-out” (a) for a single exam, and (b) for many exams. Both interventions increase task uptake (exam sign-up). Concerning the outcomes which require effort, we find no effects for many exams. For a single exam, the opt-out increases task completion (exam participation) in the study program where the default arguably entails stronger endorsement. Within this program, the effects on successful task completion (exam passing) are heterogeneous: treated students who in the past were willing to communicate with the university (responsive individuals) invest more effort into exam preparation and are more likely to pass the exam than their control counterparts.For non-responsive individuals, we find increased sign-ups but no effects on the target outcomes. Defaults can thus be effective and may be an attractive policy option even when the target outcome requires substantial effort provision. It is, however crucial that the interventions target the appropriate individuals.

While distance learning has become widespread, causal estimates regarding returns to effort in technology-assisted learning environments are scarce due to high attrition rates and endogeneity of effort. In this paper, I manipulate effort by randomly assigning students different numbers of lessons in a popular online language learning platform. Using administrative data from the platform and the instrumental variables strategy, I find that completing 9 Duolingo lessons, which corresponds to approximately 60 minutes of studying, leads to a 0.057–0.095 standard deviation increase in test scores. Comparisons to the literature and back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that distance learning can be as effective as in-person learning for college students for an introductory language course.

This review article explores the role of land-grant Extension amidst an escalating epistemic crisis, where misinformation and the contestation of knowledge severely impact public trust and policymaking. We delve into the historical mission of land-grant institutions to democratize education and extend knowledge through Cooperative Extension Services, highlighting their unique position to address contemporary challenges of information disorder and declining public confidence in higher education. Land-grant universities can reaffirm their relevance and leadership in disseminating reliable information by reasserting their foundational principles of unbiased, objective scholarship and deep engagement with diverse stakeholders. This reaffirmation comes at a critical time when societal trust in science and academia is waning, necessitating a recommitment to community engagement and producing knowledge for the public good. The article underscores the necessity for these institutions to adapt to the changing information landscape by fostering stakeholder-engaged scholarship and enhancing accessibility, thus reinforcing their vital role in upholding the integrity of public discourse and policy.

Academic freedom is a cornerstone of modern academic life. It is not only implied by basic liberal principles but also contributes to scientific progress and economic growth. It is therefore important to better understand what affects how free scholarly pursuits are, and to that end, we ask whether economic freedom can help explain variation in academic freedom across countries. In our case, relating the Economic Freedom of the World index and its five areas to V-Dem's index of academic freedom and its five areas reveals that the rule of law is positively and robustly related to academic freedom in all its forms. This suggests that the rule of law, in its general and broad sense, can arguably serve as a guarantor of academic freedom. Where the rule of law is weakened, academic freedom can be at risk. There are some indications that regulatory freedom is similarly related to academic freedom, but less robustly so, maybe indicating that interventionism in one policy area (economics) can breed interventionism in another (academia).

Academics worry grade inflation lowers standards; whereas, employers are concerned grades may not distinguish students’ abilities. These concerns are dismissed if higher grades reflect improved academic achievement and not inflation. Potential grade inflation is examined using data from 17,696 classes between 1985 and 2019 in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Texas A&M University. Evidence of systemic grade increase is found after controlling for institution, instructor, and student characteristics. Grade increases are partially explained by recruiting better and more female students. Grade inflation, however, may be associated with increased hiring of graduate students and other instructors.

This study looks at the recent development (1998–2009) in the number of years of schooling that a 6-year old can expect to attend until their 30th birthday for the EU-27 countries. All countries have seen an increase in the number of expected years of schooling, which is driven mainly by increased tertiary enrolment rates. At the same time the education gap vis-à-vis the US has been closed. The dispersion of expected length of education among EU countries has also decreased. Thus, by this measure, education among countries has become more equal. In spite of this progress, some countries will find it difficult to meet their national targets for tertiary educational attainments for 30–34 year-olds in 2020. This is largely because the tertiary education participation rates of young males have been falling behind those of females in many countries. Focussing on the tertiary educational attainments of 30–34 year-olds leaves governments with little time to pursue policies with substantial impact. It would be preferable to supplement the educational attainment target for 30–34 year-olds with an enrolment target for 20–24 year-olds.