3 ms·
Actually, the chart shows a pretty damning story for selection bias: despite all the selectivity of schools, there's no sign of improvement in returns for more
by jldugger 11y ago
Actually, the chart shows a pretty damning story for selection bias: despite all the selectivity of schools, there's no sign of improvement in returns for more selective engineering schools. It makes a bit of intuitive sense: any MIT/CMU/Stanford/etc premium on degrees would be capped by management salary structure, since fresh grads don't typically earn more than their boss. It's possible that a linear fit is not a great model, as the little data there is on the far left chart is all above average, but the 10x engineer isn't registering on the radar.
As for what people can do differently: if you have equal chances of succeeding at the most selective arts and humanities college, or the least selective engineering, choosing engineering will net you better 20 year salaries. Especially relevant if you're considering humanities as a law degree path -- the LSAT has logical reasoning test, and if you can hack that, you can probably do okay in engineering math / CS classes.
- koluft 11y agoHow many CS grads from Ohio state are getting $150k start in SV it NY? To get nothing of the growth 10 years later
- jldugger 11y agoI don't have linkedin pro. How many?
- gozur88 11y ago>Actually, the chart shows a pretty damning story for selection bias: despite all the selectivity of schools, there's no sign of improvement in returns for more selective engineering schools. But since we're talking about ROI and not salary, you very much want to get into the most expensive, most selective engineering schools. If I invest money in bonds these days I'm going to get less than a 5% return - if I can get a 12% return I want to invest as much as I can borrow.