4 ms·

The biggest issue is selection bias. Most people that go to Harvard are smart and hard working. And most of their success is due to this as opposed to due to ge

The biggest issue is selection bias. Most people that go to Harvard are smart and hard working. And most of their success is due to this as opposed to due to getting into Harvard. But I would love to see a value add model looking at the salaries of people who barely got into Harvard vs those who barely didn't and compare that to the cost of tuition. Years to get paid back, total return, return vs S&P 500.

sokoloff 4y ago
There was a study on this and a reasonable summary in the Atlantic: https://www.nber.org/papers/w7322 https://www.nber.org/papers/w7322 As summarized by the Atlantic: "For most students, the salary boost from going to a super-selective school is “generally indistinguishable from zero” after adjusting for student characteristics, such as test scores. In other words, if Mike and Drew have the same SAT scores and apply to the same colleges, but Mike gets into Harvard and Drew doesn’t, they can still expect to earn the same income throughout their careers. Despite Harvard’s international fame and energetic alumni outreach, somebody like Mike would not experience an observable “Harvard effect.” Dale and Krueger even found that the average SAT scores of all the schools a student applies to is a more powerful predictor of success than the school that student actually attends. This finding suggests that the talents and ambitions of individual students are worth more than the resources and renown of elite schools. Or, less academically, the person you’re becoming at 18 is a better predictor of your future success than the school you graduate from at 22. The takeaway here: Stress out about your habits and chill out about college." To be fair, the Atlantic continues on to say that the effect is different for women (which they ascribe primarily to increased workforce participation rates [the paper is almost 25 years old now, so read that as "increased participation in the Carter->Clinton era]").
- notch898a 4y ago
  I think this depends on when you enter the labor market. Entry level jobs seem to often have a cutoff point of "good enough." During bad years like 2010 you need every leg up possible, including bullshit reputational advantage. During boom years like early 2022 a code diploma mill and a pulse gets you in the same door. Once you make it through the first door (assuming you last at least a year or so) to an extent you're a "made man" it becomes more about your next step.
- JamesBarney 4y ago
  Yeah I'm familiar with that paper. There's also a 2011 update to the paper. https://www.nber.org/papers/w17159 https://www.nber.org/papers/w17159 I was hoping someone ran a real time version of this as a comparable to the US News college report.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    If you want to study influences on lifetime earnings, it seems like you’re inherently constrained to report on inputs-at-age-21 with significant lag.
- strikelaserclaw 4y ago
  i'd say that the "average" outcomes would likely be the same for two "similar" people, one who attends a prestigious school and one who attends a state school but i'd say the probability of becoming "wildly successful" is much higher at the prestigious school (even if the overall probability of becoming "wildly successful" is small)
- aoki 4y ago
  Dale & Krueger and its descendants are based on a college cohort from 1976. It reflects the college goers of the 70s (not only male-heavy but white-heavy) and economic history as it applied to the Boomer generation. My personal expectation is that the higher ed sector, by collectively shunting high-achieving middle class students to lower-tier schools because “they will have the same outcomes” according to this line of research, will turn out to have contributed to substantial downward mobility in that segment.

sokoloff 4y ago

There was a study on this and a reasonable summary in the Atlantic: https://www.nber.org/papers/w7322 https://www.nber.org/papers/w7322 As summarized by the Atlantic: "For most students, the salary boost from going to a super-selective school is “generally indistinguishable from zero” after adjusting for student characteristics, such as test scores. In other words, if Mike and Drew have the same SAT scores and apply to the same colleges, but Mike gets into Harvard and Drew doesn’t, they can still expect to earn the same income throughout their careers. Despite Harvard’s international fame and energetic alumni outreach, somebody like Mike would not experience an observable “Harvard effect.” Dale and Krueger even found that the average SAT scores of all the schools a student applies to is a more powerful predictor of success than the school that student actually attends. This finding suggests that the talents and ambitions of individual students are worth more than the resources and renown of elite schools. Or, less academically, the person you’re becoming at 18 is a better predictor of your future success than the school you graduate from at 22. The takeaway here: Stress out about your habits and chill out about college." To be fair, the Atlantic continues on to say that the effect is different for women (which they ascribe primarily to increased workforce participation rates [the paper is almost 25 years old now, so read that as "increased participation in the Carter->Clinton era]").

notch898a 4y ago
I think this depends on when you enter the labor market. Entry level jobs seem to often have a cutoff point of "good enough." During bad years like 2010 you need every leg up possible, including bullshit reputational advantage. During boom years like early 2022 a code diploma mill and a pulse gets you in the same door. Once you make it through the first door (assuming you last at least a year or so) to an extent you're a "made man" it becomes more about your next step.
JamesBarney 4y ago
Yeah I'm familiar with that paper. There's also a 2011 update to the paper. https://www.nber.org/papers/w17159 https://www.nber.org/papers/w17159 I was hoping someone ran a real time version of this as a comparable to the US News college report.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  If you want to study influences on lifetime earnings, it seems like you’re inherently constrained to report on inputs-at-age-21 with significant lag.
strikelaserclaw 4y ago
i'd say that the "average" outcomes would likely be the same for two "similar" people, one who attends a prestigious school and one who attends a state school but i'd say the probability of becoming "wildly successful" is much higher at the prestigious school (even if the overall probability of becoming "wildly successful" is small)
aoki 4y ago
Dale & Krueger and its descendants are based on a college cohort from 1976. It reflects the college goers of the 70s (not only male-heavy but white-heavy) and economic history as it applied to the Boomer generation. My personal expectation is that the higher ed sector, by collectively shunting high-achieving middle class students to lower-tier schools because “they will have the same outcomes” according to this line of research, will turn out to have contributed to substantial downward mobility in that segment.