4 ms·
> compare the career earnings of graduates with the present-day cost of a degree at their alma maters, net of financial aid Woah, what? So a degree that cost $
by RyanZAG 10y ago
> compare the career earnings of graduates with the present-day cost of a degree at their alma maters, net of financial aid
Woah, what? So a degree that cost $1 but raised your career earnings by $100 would be at 100%? 1000%? Not sure how they're doing the math, but it completely dwarfs the rest. And shows how obviously flawed the measure itself is.
One of the key things left out is the baseline cost of time. A few years of your life is not free and probably makes for a pretty high baseline cost.
- aab0 10y ago> One of the key things left out is the baseline cost of time. A few years of your life is not free and probably makes for a pretty high baseline cost. Hm, wouldn't that already be accounted for in using 'lifetime earnings'? If someone doesn't go to college and earns $1m, and another person goes to college and earns $1.1m, then the extra 4 working years apparently didn't compensate enough. Plus, college can be a lot more fun than working.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]