mechanism to match over 90,000 entering students to public high schools each year. This paper makes a very preliminary report on the design process and the first year of operation, in academic year 2003-04, for students entering high school in Fall 2004. In the first year, only about 3,000 students had to be assigned to a school for which they had not indicated a preference, which is only 10 % of the number of such assignments the previous year. New York City has the largest public school system in the country, with over a million students. In 1969 the system was decentralized into over thirty community school districts. In the 1990s, the city began to take more centralized control, and in 2002, a newly reorganized NYCDOE began to reform many aspects of the school system. In May 2003, Dr. Jeremy Lack, then the NYCDOE Director of Strategic Planning, contacted one of us for advice on designing a new high school matching process. The NYCDOE was aware of the matching process for American physicians, the National Resident Matching Program (Roth 1984; Roth and Peranson 1999). They wanted to know if it could be appropriately adapted to the city’s schools. The three authors of the present paper (and, at several crucial junctures, also Tayfun Sönmez) advised (and often convinced) Dr.

This paper develops an empirical methodology for extracting pricing factors from investor portfolio data. We apply this approach to the stockholdings of Norwegian individual investors from 1997 to 2017. A two‐factor model, featuring the market portfolio and a long‐short portfolio constructed from the holdings of investors sorted by age or wealth, explains both the common variation in portfolio holdings and the cross section of stock returns. Portfolio tilts toward the long‐short investor factor correlate with indebtedness, macroeconomic exposure, gender, and investment experience. Our paper illustrates the benefits of using holdings data for explaining the risk premia of financial assets.

The task assigned the 1962 Courses and Curricula Committee of the American Accounting Association was "to develop criteria for selecting the content and quality of collegiate accounting educational materials to provide adequate instruction in the body of knowledge that is accounting." The 1961 Committee, which was kept intact for a second year, decided that this task was possible after it discarded other more limited objectives because they involved too many restrictive assumptions to produce useful conclusions. To reduce its task to manageable proportions, the Committee decided to exclude so-called "service" courses, in which accounting is taught primarily to students who are preparing for careers other than accounting careers. For example, the first course in accounting is not considered, since it is offered primarily for those students who do not plan to go on in accounting. As a result, these recommendations apply only to schools which have as one of their objectives educating college students who intend to enter the business world as accountants in industrial, governmental, or public accounting organizations.

The article focuses on the proceedings of the twelfth annual convention of the American Association of University Instructors in Accounting, held at Washington D.C., between December 28 and 29, 1927. After some introductory remarks by the organizers, papers were read by W. W. Nissley of the American Institute of Accountants, John R. Wildman of the company Haskins and Sells, David Himmelblau of Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, William A. Paton of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and J. L. Dohr of Greene and Hurd and of Columbia University, New York, New York. The second program meeting was given over to a discussion of various features of the federal income tax law. Johns Hopkins University's, Baltimore, Maryland, professor presided at the session and opened it with a brief statement introducing the speakers of the afternoon, all of whom were representatives of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The third program session consisted of a joint meeting with the American Association of Collegiate Schools of Business. The general topic for discussion was "The Place of Accounting in Commerce Curriculum."

Why the Apple Doesn't Fall Far: Understanding Intergenerational Transmission of Human Capital by Sandra E. Black, Paul J. Devereux and Kjell G. Salvanes. Published in volume 95, issue 1, pages 437-449 of American Economic Review, March 2005

Estimating the Knowledge-Capital Model of the Multinational Enterprise: Reply by David L. Carr, James R. Markusen and Keith E. Maskus. Published in volume 93, issue 3, pages 995-1001 of American Economic Review, June 2003

Estimating the Knowledge-Capital Model of the Multinational Enterprise by David L. Carr, James R. Markusen and Keith E. Maskus. Published in volume 91, issue 3, pages 693-708 of American Economic Review, June 2001

Although rapidly evolving, quality control (QC) systems are a poorly understood determinant of audit quality. We interview 27 QC system leaders to understand how they navigate the challenges they face in changing QC systems. We find that many challenges—including obtaining buy-in, evaluating costs and benefits, and advancing proactive over reactive changes—are caused by conflicting demands arising internally. Consistent with institutional theory, our data reveal that leaders respond to conflicting demands by seeking partial conformity (e.g., negotiating among stakeholders) or by altering the framing of the demands (e.g., using scientific logic to legitimize a QC change). Interviews of eight QC system users complement and corroborate our main results and suggest opportunities for future research. Our study sheds light on how firms update QC systems and informs practitioners, regulators, and academics of the forces that shape the evolution of QC systems. Data Availability: Our data are not publicly available to preserve participant anonymity.

Research indicates that auditors have an impoverished understanding of trial preparation factors that, independent of audit quality, can significantly elevate audit litigation risk. As the scholarly literature sheds little insight about the nature and implications of these factors, we identify what factors audit litigators consider in trial preparation, how they expect these factors to affect litigation outcomes, and how they attempt to leverage these factors. To do so, we interview 39 audit litigators, who identify factors germane to trial venues, jury pools, and case arguments. Guided by the elaboration likelihood model, we construct a framework that predicts these factors influence litigation outcomes by changing jurors’ motivation and/or capability to elaborate. Importantly, we find that litigators who defend (sue) auditors strategically maneuver these factors to increase (decrease) the likelihood of higher juror elaboration, because higher elaboration is favorable to auditors. We discuss implications of our results for practice and research.

This study examines two questions: When do firms make greater use of subjectivity in awarding bonuses? What are the effects of subjectivity on employee pay satisfaction and firm performance? We examine these questions using data from a sample of 526 department managers in 250 car dealerships. First, the findings suggest that subjective bonuses are used to complement perceived weaknesses in quantitative performance measures and to provide employees insurance against downside risk in their pay. Specifically, use of subjective bonuses is positively related to: (1) the extent of long-term investments in intangibles; (2) the extent of organizational interdependencies; (3) the extent to which the achievability of the formula bonus target is both difficult and leads to significant consequences if not met; and (4) the presence of an operating loss. Second, we find that the effects of subjective bonuses on pay satisfaction, productivity, and profitability are larger the greater the manager's tenure, consistent with the idea that subjectivity improves incentive contracting when there is greater trust between the subordinate and supervisor