After the baseline data was collected and the randomization performed, students participated in the entrepreneurship track between February 2010 and June 2010, when they graduated. Followup data were collected through face-to-face interviews between April and June 2011, approximately nine to twelve months after the end of the academic year.<sup>9</sup> The instrument included questions related to socio-economic characteristics and a detailed labor module. The survey also collected a range of other indicators including information on aspirations for the future, personality traits, and behavioral skills related to entrepreneurship. Thorough tracking procedures led to low non-response rates at follow-up<sup>10</sup> : 92.8 percent of the 1,702 applicants were tracked, a low attrition rate given the high mobility of the population of graduates.<sup>11</sup> Importantly, attrition was balanced and uncorrelated with treatment status.<sup>12</sup> Table 2 presents the average baseline characteristics of the treatment group (assigned to the entrepreneurship track) and the control group (assigned to the standard curriculum), as well as differences between the two at baseline.<sup>13</sup> Randomization achieved good balance. There were few systematic differences between participants and non-participants and the differences were quantitatively small.<sup>14</sup> Empirical analysis will control for the few characteristics that are statistically different between the two groups at baseline.

Administrative records from ANETI show imperfect compliance with assignment to the treatment group. Of the 856 students who applied and were randomly assigned to the entrepreneurship track, 67 percent completed the business training at the local employment office, and 59 percent completed both business training and coaching. Overall, 41 percent dropped out of the program prior to completing both training and coaching. The magnitude of

> 9 In October 2010, qualitative data were collected to gather students’, coaches’, and professors’ perceptions on the implementation of the intervention.

> 10 Detailed contact information was collected in the baseline surveys. This included students’ address, email address, landline and cell phone numbers, as well as their parents’ address, landline and cell phone numbers. Most students register at employment offices upon graduation, and contact information (phone numbers and address) from the employment office database was also collected and merged with the data (see World Bank and MFPE, 2012). 11 The attrition rate is lower to the one achieved for other surveys in the country. For instance, the attrition rate for the 2005 Tunisia graduate tracer survey was 11 percent. Oostenbeck et al. (2008) have an attrition rate of 56 percent in their study of entrepreneurship education for university students in the Netherlands.

> 12 Attrition in the full baseline sample was 7.2 percent at follow-up. At baseline, 10.1 percent of applicants could not be reached for the complementary phone survey conducted in January and February 2010. Combined attrition in either this baseline phone survey or the follow-up survey collected in 2011 is 15.9 percent. Attrition in both surveys was 1.4 percent. All of these attrition indicators were balanced across treatment and comparison groups.

> 13 Table 2 is presented for the effective sample used for estimations and composed of the 1,580 students that could be tracked at follow-up. Results are almost identical when using the full baseline sample of 1,702 students.

> 14 For example, participants seemed to be on average older and had more years of experience than non-participants.

11