3 ms·

Yes, that is precisely the question that has been asked & answered, and the general consensus in the academic literature (for example https://www.nber.org/paper

by dahart 4y ago

Yes, that is precisely the question that has been asked & answered, and the general consensus in the academic literature (for example https://www.nber.org/papers/w7322 https://www.nber.org/papers/w7322) is that it’s both. The Fed paper I linked to here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35212497 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35212497 shows dramatically higher income and wealth premiums for educated people in the 30s and 40s, so you might want to take a peek.

rahimnathwani 4y ago
The GP asked what the outcomes would have been if no one had gone to college. This isn't answered by the paper you linked, which discussed the impact on individuals of college choice in a world where people do* go to college.
- dahart 4y ago
  This and other papers are trying as best they can to answer exactly that question, of what if there was no college. Since the hypothetical universe where college never existed doesn’t exist, they have to resort to careful scientific techniques that attempt to factor out every bias we can think of. They’re working with what they have. Papers have, for example, studied the family history of college attendance and adjusted (discounted) for when parents and grandparents attend, they have adjusted for family wealth, for race, for geographic location, for country, for tuition, etc. etc.. You can either accept that they’ve tried rather hard and come up with a reasonable answer, or accept that the question you’re demanding be answered in the specific way you want it answered is not answerable that way, your choice. Again, I have to ask (since it hasn’t yet been answered yet in this thread) why does this hypothetical question matter from a student’s perspective? Students are deciding what to do in the world that exists now, not in a world where people don’t go to college. All they know is that outcomes are better with a degree that without, on average. If you were choosing college right now, why does it matter what happens in the alternate reality? Don’t you just think about the jobs you want in the future, what you’re interests are and how much money you want to make, and then go or not?
  - rahimnathwani 4y ago
    This and other papers are trying as best they can to answer exactly that question, of what if there was no college. No they don't. why does this hypothetical question matter from a student’s perspective?" It doesn't matter from a prospective student's perspective. If someone cares only about their own success (or their children's), it doesn't matter. But it matters for society overall, so it is still worth discussing.
    - dahart 4y ago
      > No they don’t. I believe you’re wrong on this point, but please elaborate; why do you think that, and what evidence do you have to back it up? Why do you claim that the papers I’ve already linked to aren’t answering this question? Why do you believe that no others exist? Are you talking about causality still, or are you only claiming that the papers I linked didn’t literally talk about a world without college? Maybe we need to step back and state our assumptions more carefully. The thread above started by @jletienne asked what is the causal vs correlation split for the outcome of a university education, and then @jedberg presumed to clarify that question by asking what if there was no college, which is one of many ways to ask what is the true causal effect of university education on earnings and outcomes, as opposed to correlations that artificially inflate the perceived value of a degree. If people are more likely to go to college because their parents went, then parents deserve some of the credit, and college doesn’t get all of it. If two jobs make use of exactly the same skills, but one asks for a degree and pays more, then the job gets some of the credit too, and college gets even less. The question ‘what if there was no college’ is simply a way of clarifying the causality, and so I have assumed we’re still talking about the causality question. Are you still talking about the causality question, or are you moving the goal posts on me? Yes it would be ideal to have a world with no college to compare against. The St. Louis Fed paper, since they have no world without college to study, does a causality analysis on the “true” value of college in section III, where they attempt to discount for correlations with some known biases that inflate that perceived value of a degree compared to the world where college never existed.
      - rahimnathwani 4y ago
vxNsr 4y ago
Whether it’s fair to say or not: trusting professors to do a fair study on whether their expertise is necessary isn’t exactly an unbiased study. I’m sure they meant well but it’s just hard to take anything they’re saying at face value.
- dahart 4y ago
  That’s not fair to say. Read some of the literature. The Fed study isn’t even professors.
  - vxNsr 4y ago
    The first name on the study was a Wash U professor for over 25 years. The 2nd name has so far spent a significant amount of her life in academia. Only the 3rd author appears to have spent most of his career in public service.
    - dahart 4y ago
      Nonetheless now they all work for the Fed, so these particular ex-professors lacked the supposed conflict of interest you imagined at the time of publication. Not that I think it matters at all. There are papers on the causality of education from career academics claiming anywhere from little to none, and I haven’t seen any papers claiming it’s very very high, so the broad outcome is exactly the opposite of what would happen in your imagined scenario if it were true and researchers were being defensive and biased about the value of education. Your comment above is FUD, not based on knowledge of the research or the researchers, but pure speculation, which is why it’s not fair to say.

by dahart 4y ago

rahimnathwani 4y ago

The GP asked what the outcomes would have been if no one had gone to college. This isn't answered by the paper you linked, which discussed the impact on individuals of college choice in a world where people do* go to college.

dahart 4y ago
This and other papers are trying as best they can to answer exactly that question, of what if there was no college. Since the hypothetical universe where college never existed doesn’t exist, they have to resort to careful scientific techniques that attempt to factor out every bias we can think of. They’re working with what they have. Papers have, for example, studied the family history of college attendance and adjusted (discounted) for when parents and grandparents attend, they have adjusted for family wealth, for race, for geographic location, for country, for tuition, etc. etc.. You can either accept that they’ve tried rather hard and come up with a reasonable answer, or accept that the question you’re demanding be answered in the specific way you want it answered is not answerable that way, your choice. Again, I have to ask (since it hasn’t yet been answered yet in this thread) why does this hypothetical question matter from a student’s perspective? Students are deciding what to do in the world that exists now, not in a world where people don’t go to college. All they know is that outcomes are better with a degree that without, on average. If you were choosing college right now, why does it matter what happens in the alternate reality? Don’t you just think about the jobs you want in the future, what you’re interests are and how much money you want to make, and then go or not?
- rahimnathwani 4y ago
  This and other papers are trying as best they can to answer exactly that question, of what if there was no college. No they don't. why does this hypothetical question matter from a student’s perspective?" It doesn't matter from a prospective student's perspective. If someone cares only about their own success (or their children's), it doesn't matter. But it matters for society overall, so it is still worth discussing.
  - dahart 4y ago
    > No they don’t. I believe you’re wrong on this point, but please elaborate; why do you think that, and what evidence do you have to back it up? Why do you claim that the papers I’ve already linked to aren’t answering this question? Why do you believe that no others exist? Are you talking about causality still, or are you only claiming that the papers I linked didn’t literally talk about a world without college? Maybe we need to step back and state our assumptions more carefully. The thread above started by @jletienne asked what is the causal vs correlation split for the outcome of a university education, and then @jedberg presumed to clarify that question by asking what if there was no college, which is one of many ways to ask what is the true causal effect of university education on earnings and outcomes, as opposed to correlations that artificially inflate the perceived value of a degree. If people are more likely to go to college because their parents went, then parents deserve some of the credit, and college doesn’t get all of it. If two jobs make use of exactly the same skills, but one asks for a degree and pays more, then the job gets some of the credit too, and college gets even less. The question ‘what if there was no college’ is simply a way of clarifying the causality, and so I have assumed we’re still talking about the causality question. Are you still talking about the causality question, or are you moving the goal posts on me? Yes it would be ideal to have a world with no college to compare against. The St. Louis Fed paper, since they have no world without college to study, does a causality analysis on the “true” value of college in section III, where they attempt to discount for correlations with some known biases that inflate that perceived value of a degree compared to the world where college never existed.
    - rahimnathwani 4y ago

vxNsr 4y ago

Whether it’s fair to say or not: trusting professors to do a fair study on whether their expertise is necessary isn’t exactly an unbiased study. I’m sure they meant well but it’s just hard to take anything they’re saying at face value.

dahart 4y ago
That’s not fair to say. Read some of the literature. The Fed study isn’t even professors.
- vxNsr 4y ago
  The first name on the study was a Wash U professor for over 25 years. The 2nd name has so far spent a significant amount of her life in academia. Only the 3rd author appears to have spent most of his career in public service.
  - dahart 4y ago
    Nonetheless now they all work for the Fed, so these particular ex-professors lacked the supposed conflict of interest you imagined at the time of publication. Not that I think it matters at all. There are papers on the causality of education from career academics claiming anywhere from little to none, and I haven’t seen any papers claiming it’s very very high, so the broad outcome is exactly the opposite of what would happen in your imagined scenario if it were true and researchers were being defensive and biased about the value of education. Your comment above is FUD, not based on knowledge of the research or the researchers, but pure speculation, which is why it’s not fair to say.