4 ms·
This analysis is fatally flawed in that it assumes all of the difference in earnings is caused by the presence or absence of a degree.
by fallingknife 5y ago
This analysis is fatally flawed in that it assumes all of the difference in earnings is caused by the presence or absence of a degree.
- xyzzy21 5y agoEmpirical evidence says you're wrong about that. And it's a very simple thing to prove: can you easily pay off the cost of your degree within 10 years or less? And is this generally true for most people with your degree? The answer is easily shown by thousands of news reports of liberal arts degree holders being stuck in debt into their 50s and losing ground. The exceptions (STEM degree primarily and people who come from enough money that ROI doesn't matter) prove the rule.
- sfink 5y agoNo it doesn't. Its "counterfactual" earnings are an attempt to estimate the earnings of the same cohort of people had they not gone to college. Which is impossible to do without random assignment, but they are making a good-faith estimate.
- Kranar 5y agoFirst, even if that were true, it would not be a fatal flaw. Second the report makes no causal inference and even points out that such an inference is very difficult to make. Instead the study controls for a variety of factors such as family background, geographic location, demographics, health and age.