3 ms·
All such studies suffer from the same debilitating flaw—there are almost certainly confounding variables at work. To reach any firm conclusion, you would need t
by mhartl 15y ago
All such studies suffer from the same debilitating flaw—there are almost certainly confounding variables at work. To reach any firm conclusion, you would need to compare degree recipients with a cohort of statistically equivalent people who could have earned degree X but did something else instead. All these "education pays" charts show is that people who earn advanced degrees earn more money. But such people are also probably smarter and more determined than average. You don't need a Ph.D. to know that correlation doesn't imply causation.
P.S. This is not sour grapes. I have degrees in physics from Harvard (A.B.) and Caltech (M.S., Ph.D.), and I make well more than the median earnings for Ph.D.s.
P.P.S. I know the real reason these sorts of studies proliferate, but this comment is too small to contain it.
- ObjectiveSub 15y agoI am interested to know your opinion on why these studies proliferate. Can you please explain why?
- gcb 15y agopeople need data to validate their preconceptions
- gbog 15y agoYou say this in way that seem to mean that for you education do not "pay". But I really don't know how one could affirm that education do not "pay". Heavy focus on deep, large, long and high-quality education to their offspring is the most important reason, if not the only one, for elite people to stay in the elite. It is also the most rational explanation to why some people are often perceived as more successful than other, eg Chinese and Jewish. It is easy to come up with counter examples of some guy who did not have the best traditional education cursus and did manage to be successful despite this. But exceptions are not the rule. The mainstream, average rule is that people in power have had good or excellent education. So this little chart about "education pays" is just a confirmation, among others, to a well-known fact. It has a lot of shortcomings, and shortcuts (like using the income as a measure for success) but it is some value, at least as a reminder. NB: I may seem hot on the topic. Yes, I am hot on this. Why? Maybe because I live in China, where I see everyday a lot of people who struggle extremely hard, save each yuan they can, in order to push their offspring to the best universities.
- gcb 15y agoeducation may or may not be college. Elites keep being elites by keeping others out. In the past that was done via extremely expensive education clubs.
- randomdata 15y agoWhat is not clear to me is why people with degrees are always trying to promote that others also get degrees. The exclusivity of the degree is what makes it interesting and valuable. Not knocking the education component, education is always a good thing (whether it comes from school or some other avenue), but the perception of success you talk about is because it is still somewhat of an exclusive club; probably doubly so in developing nations. However, thanks to the pressure on students to go to college, that gap is continually shrinking and constantly devaluing the value of the degree. If you buy a Ferrari, you are perceived as more successful than others. You are going to be afforded luxuries that others do not have, just because you are signalling that you are "better". If we did some studies, I bet we would even find that Ferrari ownership, like a degree, pays – through better contacts and opportunities to make money because of the signalling. But I don't see Ferrari owners out there telling everyone that they need to own a Ferrari. They understand the importance of being part of a select few. If education pays, you would think you would want to keep that under wraps. Given that, it always feels like there are some insecurities at play every time the topic comes up.
- fdschoeneman 15y agoStories like this pop up frequently on HN. But I'm intrigued by your post post script. What do you think is the reason for the proliferation of these studies, and why do they so often ignore the correlation-does-not-prove-causation fallacy? In this case, I see two possibilities. The Bureau of Labor Statistics author is too dumb to understand the fallacy. The second is that she does understand the fallacy, but thinks that at least some Americans won't. If the latter, what purpose would that serve? Interesting.
- roel_v 15y agoI think it's because not because these numbers are imperfect, or because many things can be read into them that shouldn't, that they are completely useless. In the end you need some data that is intuitive to understand, even if there are many ifs and buts involved.
- mhartl 15y agoI'll tell you my hypothesis some time, off the record and over a nice bottle of Pinot.