5 ms·

I really do wonder how much of these gaps can be attributed to the universities themselves. Elite universities are more likely to attract successful and motivat

I really do wonder how much of these gaps can be attributed to the universities themselves. Elite universities are more likely to attract successful and motivated and thus will "produce" more successful graduates than other universities. No name state colleges are more likely to attract the less successful high school students and thus they will likely produce less successful graduates. I bet there is nearly as much correlation between SAT scores and pay as the eliteness of the attended university and pay.

bd 11y ago
Yup, selection effect bias. There was a long term study on this (sorry no link, I don't remember exact details, just that it was pretty solid, could have been famous Terman study [1] or something similar). People who were admitted to elite universities but for whichever random reasons ended up not going there ended up being as successful as their cohort peers who did attend elite institutions. What mattered was "good enough for Ivy League" not Ivy League education itself. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Studies_of_Genius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Studies_of_Genius
- SilasX 11y ago
  ... it would really suck if the pro-education policies if numerous countries were all based in a misunderstanding of why education is correlated with success. (To put it mildly.)
  - plonh 11y ago
    Pro-Education is different from pro-collehe, but yes. And when there is only room for say 10% of the population to succeed , making 100% of the population meet today's arbitrary selection criteria will only serve to usher in new selection criteria.
VLM 11y ago
The ratio of income inequality is immensely higher than the ratio of tuition cost, which is at least kind of interesting. Also the education bubble is economically sustainable if and only if the population is selected to be elite ivies only. A nation where nobody makes over $10/hr unless they're in the ivy aristocracy (therefore attending for free with substantial scholarships and aid) doesn't mix well with $60K/yr tuition for a non-elite school.
dovereconomics 11y ago
Not necessarily. Many talented students can't afford or avoid debt in elite universities. At the same time, less competitive students may get accepted because of donations/connections/preparatory schools.
- rsy96 11y ago
  > At the same time, less competitive students may get accepted because of donations/connections/preparatory schools. That means their family is rich and/or has powerful connections. Thus they will be more likely to succeed after graduation.
- morgante 11y ago
  > Many talented students can't afford or avoid debt in elite universities. That's actually very very rare. Elite universities will give grants which cover the vast majority of costs for low-income students. There's a reason the average indebtedness at graduation for Ivies is only a few thousand dollars (and that's not even including the majority who have no debt).
  - kom107 11y ago
    While this is true, many disadvantaged students don't even know this, because they don't even look at these schools in the first place, as they assume they cannot afford to attend. Selection bias.

bd 11y ago

Yup, selection effect bias. There was a long term study on this (sorry no link, I don't remember exact details, just that it was pretty solid, could have been famous Terman study [1] or something similar). People who were admitted to elite universities but for whichever random reasons ended up not going there ended up being as successful as their cohort peers who did attend elite institutions. What mattered was "good enough for Ivy League" not Ivy League education itself. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Studies_of_Genius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Studies_of_Genius

SilasX 11y ago
... it would really suck if the pro-education policies if numerous countries were all based in a misunderstanding of why education is correlated with success. (To put it mildly.)
- plonh 11y ago
  Pro-Education is different from pro-collehe, but yes. And when there is only room for say 10% of the population to succeed , making 100% of the population meet today's arbitrary selection criteria will only serve to usher in new selection criteria.

VLM 11y ago

The ratio of income inequality is immensely higher than the ratio of tuition cost, which is at least kind of interesting. Also the education bubble is economically sustainable if and only if the population is selected to be elite ivies only. A nation where nobody makes over $10/hr unless they're in the ivy aristocracy (therefore attending for free with substantial scholarships and aid) doesn't mix well with $60K/yr tuition for a non-elite school.

dovereconomics 11y ago

Not necessarily. Many talented students can't afford or avoid debt in elite universities. At the same time, less competitive students may get accepted because of donations/connections/preparatory schools.

rsy96 11y ago
> At the same time, less competitive students may get accepted because of donations/connections/preparatory schools. That means their family is rich and/or has powerful connections. Thus they will be more likely to succeed after graduation.
morgante 11y ago
> Many talented students can't afford or avoid debt in elite universities. That's actually very very rare. Elite universities will give grants which cover the vast majority of costs for low-income students. There's a reason the average indebtedness at graduation for Ivies is only a few thousand dollars (and that's not even including the majority who have no debt).
- kom107 11y ago
  While this is true, many disadvantaged students don't even know this, because they don't even look at these schools in the first place, as they assume they cannot afford to attend. Selection bias.