6 ms·

I went to an "elite" Indian college. Anecdotally, I can say the quality of education was quite a bit higher than what could be had at non-elite colleges. I can

I went to an "elite" Indian college. Anecdotally, I can say the quality of education was quite a bit higher than what could be had at non-elite colleges. I can also say with reasonable certainty that the large salary difference is mostly due to signalling. Even the graduates from a top college has much to learn before they can contribute to their job. Also, elite college admissions are based on test score on one day in the student's life in high school, while their brain is still developing. I have personally seen many who didn't qualify, but have gone on to do great things. Their initial salary was definitely low.

sadfev 6y ago
Completely agree with your assessment, I also went to an ‘elite’ college, had the exact same experience.
austincheney 6y ago
To add to this with numbers the US military imposes a standardized test on all service members and many high school students who never become service members. The test, the ASVAB, is composed of several sections but all anybody really looks at is the GT score. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Services_Vocational_Aptitude_Battery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Services_Vocational_Apti... The first time I took the test as a dumb 17 year old who was at risk of failing out of high school my GT score was only 107 (out of 130) and my average performance placement compared to all other test participants that year was 79 (on a scale of 0 - 99). Generally, everybody who entered the military as a teenager notices dramatic improvement on that test when retaking it later life even with no preparation. When I wanted to become a warrant officer I had to retake the test because of my low scores. The minimum GT score to become a warrant officer is 110. I retook the test at the age of 35 after 8 years of being a full time software developer in the corporate world. My new GT score was 129 (out of 130) and my placement amongst other test takers that year (on a scale of 0 - 99) was 98. I think research generally bears this out across a variety of metrics and meaures including violent crime data. The human brain is still developing until around age 24 give or take two years. This is why applaud California's recent decision to halt standardized tests, such as SAT and ACT, as a mandatory placement criteria for entering university. All those tests measure, given the youth and maturity of traditional high school students, is extreme preparation and not performance or potential. Preparation in that regard is a socio-economic stratifier as it takes time and money outside of the student's own initiative and state provided education.
- legolas2412 6y ago
  > This is why applaud California's recent decision to halt standardized tests, such as SAT and ACT, as a mandatory placement criteria for entering university. All those tests measure, given the youth and maturity of traditional high school students, is extreme preparation and not performance or potential. Unless you think that universities should pick their students by lotteries, you must answer how whatever that replaces SAT is not worse. Because whatever replaces it, for example identifying well rounded candidates with extra curricular achievements is even more socio-economic stratifying. It largely feels like an excuse to lower the competitive bar to manage the demographics, allowing both more legacy hires and more representative demographics. Such actions however will come at the cost of merit.
  - austincheney 6y ago
    > is even more socio-economic stratifying. Is there data to suggest that? Public schools are generally very good about providing a variety of extra-curricular activities to keep students focused upon athletic and scholarly activities outside the classroom if the student is willing to participate. Contrast those tax funded and faculty lead activities to private tutors and rigorous SAT practice that is almost exclusively limited to families with the personal financies to afford such. > It largely feels like an excuse to lower the competitive bar to manage the demographics I can certainly empathize with that. Wealthy households had an advantage with private tutors and timely dedicated/forced test preparation activities. Now that advantage has evaporated so that wealthy students are now less exclusively advantaged, or in other words the bar of entry has lowered to wider availability.
    - rfw300 6y ago
      > Public schools are generally very good about providing a variety of extra-curricular activities to keep students focused upon athletic and scholarly activities outside the classroom if the student is willing to participate. I think you’re greatly underestimating how much the college admissions game has changed in recent years. For top universities (like the better UCs, Ivies, etc.), being, for example, president of a club in one’s high school is essentially irrelevant. The paths to admission consist of: (1) being a top athlete, (2) significant extracurricular achievement (meaning state/national accolades, founding a non-profit, etc.), or (3) extreme adversity. You’re absolutely correct that the SAT rewards those with wealth and resources the most. But the absurd time and resource investment required of modern high-schoolers and their families to participate in extracurriculars in the way top colleges now demand is far greater a burden than SAT prep.
nicoburns 6y ago
> I went to an "elite" Indian college. Anecdotally, I can say the quality of education was quite a bit higher than what could be had at non-elite colleges. I can also say with reasonable certainty that the large salary difference is mostly due to signalling. The same is very much true for "elite" universities in the UK. The education is genuinely better, but the amount of extra weight given by employers is disproportionate.
chippy 6y ago
Re signalling - apart from simple education, going to an elite college also gives softer skills. For example increased confidence, social skills, networking opportunities, training in etiquette and behaviour or manners, and better alumini connections which could be utilised later on. Elite colleges may have better extra curricular activities too, a better gym maybe, or better equipped clubs, enabling students of the same intelligence to have other benefits than just education. Now, here's the kicker. Signalling is not about a better education. These soft skills are the primary thing that is being signalled. The signal is: "going to an elite place produces better more rounded individuals". You can go to an elite school and not gain any of the actual softer skills and stay in your room all day but you would still benefit from the signalling!
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  > social skills, training in etiquette and behaviour or manners, How do schools give these?!
  - charlesu 6y ago
    You're surrounded by the children of the elite, who model the etiquette and behavior of their parents. After a few years, you tend to imitate them and that allows you to move in those circles effortlessly. That gives you access into high powered careers like high finance, strategy consulting, and corporate law where upper-middle class behaviors are required. McKinsey just isn't going to take someone with the behaviors of a yokel and put him in front of a F500 CEO even if he's a literal genius. You have to look and act the part. That's the true value of an elite education: a rubber stamp and an understanding of the behaviors and habits of the elite.

sadfev 6y ago

Completely agree with your assessment, I also went to an ‘elite’ college, had the exact same experience.

austincheney 6y ago

To add to this with numbers the US military imposes a standardized test on all service members and many high school students who never become service members. The test, the ASVAB, is composed of several sections but all anybody really looks at is the GT score. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Services_Vocational_Aptitude_Battery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Services_Vocational_Apti... The first time I took the test as a dumb 17 year old who was at risk of failing out of high school my GT score was only 107 (out of 130) and my average performance placement compared to all other test participants that year was 79 (on a scale of 0 - 99). Generally, everybody who entered the military as a teenager notices dramatic improvement on that test when retaking it later life even with no preparation. When I wanted to become a warrant officer I had to retake the test because of my low scores. The minimum GT score to become a warrant officer is 110. I retook the test at the age of 35 after 8 years of being a full time software developer in the corporate world. My new GT score was 129 (out of 130) and my placement amongst other test takers that year (on a scale of 0 - 99) was 98. I think research generally bears this out across a variety of metrics and meaures including violent crime data. The human brain is still developing until around age 24 give or take two years. This is why applaud California's recent decision to halt standardized tests, such as SAT and ACT, as a mandatory placement criteria for entering university. All those tests measure, given the youth and maturity of traditional high school students, is extreme preparation and not performance or potential. Preparation in that regard is a socio-economic stratifier as it takes time and money outside of the student's own initiative and state provided education.

legolas2412 6y ago
> This is why applaud California's recent decision to halt standardized tests, such as SAT and ACT, as a mandatory placement criteria for entering university. All those tests measure, given the youth and maturity of traditional high school students, is extreme preparation and not performance or potential. Unless you think that universities should pick their students by lotteries, you must answer how whatever that replaces SAT is not worse. Because whatever replaces it, for example identifying well rounded candidates with extra curricular achievements is even more socio-economic stratifying. It largely feels like an excuse to lower the competitive bar to manage the demographics, allowing both more legacy hires and more representative demographics. Such actions however will come at the cost of merit.
- austincheney 6y ago
  > is even more socio-economic stratifying. Is there data to suggest that? Public schools are generally very good about providing a variety of extra-curricular activities to keep students focused upon athletic and scholarly activities outside the classroom if the student is willing to participate. Contrast those tax funded and faculty lead activities to private tutors and rigorous SAT practice that is almost exclusively limited to families with the personal financies to afford such. > It largely feels like an excuse to lower the competitive bar to manage the demographics I can certainly empathize with that. Wealthy households had an advantage with private tutors and timely dedicated/forced test preparation activities. Now that advantage has evaporated so that wealthy students are now less exclusively advantaged, or in other words the bar of entry has lowered to wider availability.
  - rfw300 6y ago
    > Public schools are generally very good about providing a variety of extra-curricular activities to keep students focused upon athletic and scholarly activities outside the classroom if the student is willing to participate. I think you’re greatly underestimating how much the college admissions game has changed in recent years. For top universities (like the better UCs, Ivies, etc.), being, for example, president of a club in one’s high school is essentially irrelevant. The paths to admission consist of: (1) being a top athlete, (2) significant extracurricular achievement (meaning state/national accolades, founding a non-profit, etc.), or (3) extreme adversity. You’re absolutely correct that the SAT rewards those with wealth and resources the most. But the absurd time and resource investment required of modern high-schoolers and their families to participate in extracurriculars in the way top colleges now demand is far greater a burden than SAT prep.

nicoburns 6y ago

> I went to an "elite" Indian college. Anecdotally, I can say the quality of education was quite a bit higher than what could be had at non-elite colleges. I can also say with reasonable certainty that the large salary difference is mostly due to signalling. The same is very much true for "elite" universities in the UK. The education is genuinely better, but the amount of extra weight given by employers is disproportionate.

chippy 6y ago

Re signalling - apart from simple education, going to an elite college also gives softer skills. For example increased confidence, social skills, networking opportunities, training in etiquette and behaviour or manners, and better alumini connections which could be utilised later on. Elite colleges may have better extra curricular activities too, a better gym maybe, or better equipped clubs, enabling students of the same intelligence to have other benefits than just education. Now, here's the kicker. Signalling is not about a better education. These soft skills are the primary thing that is being signalled. The signal is: "going to an elite place produces better more rounded individuals". You can go to an elite school and not gain any of the actual softer skills and stay in your room all day but you would still benefit from the signalling!

srtjstjsj 6y ago
> social skills, training in etiquette and behaviour or manners, How do schools give these?!
- charlesu 6y ago
  You're surrounded by the children of the elite, who model the etiquette and behavior of their parents. After a few years, you tend to imitate them and that allows you to move in those circles effortlessly. That gives you access into high powered careers like high finance, strategy consulting, and corporate law where upper-middle class behaviors are required. McKinsey just isn't going to take someone with the behaviors of a yokel and put him in front of a F500 CEO even if he's a literal genius. You have to look and act the part. That's the true value of an elite education: a rubber stamp and an understanding of the behaviors and habits of the elite.