13 ms·
Also lost in the debate, it is not just the signalling effect or the acquired knowledge but the selection bias that is not taken into account. Consider this sc
by jdhopeunique 15y ago
Also lost in the debate, it is not just the signalling effect or the acquired knowledge but the selection bias that is not taken into account. Consider this science experiment:
A scientist is testing a "success" pill. He picks 2 groups filtered by standardized test scores. He gives the pill to the high scoring group and a placebo to the low scoring group. Those in the group receiving the non-placebo are found to be more successful and the scientist concludes that the "success" pill is effective. Preposterous? Yes. The scientist is not randomly selecting groups. This is precisely what happens in stories linking college and success. The filtering or selection bias is not addressed and would occur even if the signalling advantages were ruled out.
- randomdata 15y agoExactly. It seems like a lot of potentially false conclusions are drawn from the data. Successfully completing a degree requires a significant amount of motivation and determination. Finding a good, high paying, job also requires a signifiant amount of motivation and determination. Perhaps motivated and determined people will earn more on average? People in higher class families are more likely to further their education. People in higher class families are more likely to have more business connections. Perhaps people from higher class families earn more on average? People who are good at and enjoy learning are more likely to go to college. People who are good at and enjoy learning are highly valued on the job. Perhaps people who learn quickly earn more? When all you have is correlation, an infinite number of conclusions can be reached. Why is it assumed that the degree is what makes the difference? It seems more likely to me that the attributes one is born with are much greater indicators of success.