4 ms·
It frustrates me that these ROI calculations are done as comparisons between two separate populations, each with different characteristics like raw intelligence
by kapilkale 15y ago
It frustrates me that these ROI calculations are done as comparisons between two separate populations, each with different characteristics like raw intelligence or work ethic. Return on investment should be looking at treatment effects only.
For example, it may be that science minded people have higher salaries in general, and those people also tend to apply to technical schools. In that case, the real ROI is from being technically minded, not from attending a school that focuses on that.
A better test would be looking at kids that got into both Harvey Mudd and MIT and separating them into populations based on where each kid decided to matriculate. That way you're factoring out the admissions bias.
Malcolm Gladwell wrote an article in the New Yorker about the difference between state schools and Ivy League schools that actually looked at treatment effects. And he found that there were none for the majority of the population.
I haven't seen one of these done for college vs. no college, but that would be much more valuable than misleading shit like this.
edit: summary of the Gladwell article here
http://notesandrestsmakemusic.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/the-value-of-an-ivy-league-education/ http://notesandrestsmakemusic.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/the-v...
- zeroonetwothree 15y agoYeah these comparisons are typically done incorrectly, as you note. Although Gladwell is often wrong, in this case he happens to agree with most research on the subject, in that the effects are small if at all present. However, it's worth noting that doing a study properly is difficult and there are issues with every single one, so we can't really be too confident of the result. A similar argument shows that the "$2.3 million" benefit of college over high school is vastly overstated, although there is actually some effect in this case.
- intenex 15y agoI really want to see one for no college vs college. People who got into MIT/Ivy Leagues/etc but decided not to go to college vs people who did go to the elites. Would finally stop people from doing the extraordinarily frustrating dual quotation of "going to college matters, they studied people who didn't go to college and people who did and those who did make way more money" + "but which college you go to doesn't matter, they studied people who got into ivies and went to state schools vs people who went to ivies and there was no difference!" In the first case you're using two separate populations, and in the second you're not. Assholes. EDIT: Actually fascinating that they found 191 schools with negative ROI using their ranking system. Suggests that the school really does matter - getting a simple degree isn't what differentiates you anymore, it really is where you get it from. Or perhaps those students just can't match par with the 75th percentile of high school grads, as that was their ranking criteria.
- utnick 15y agoAlso the study doesn't seem to take into account cost of living & salary differences between regions. So the list is dominated by California and east coast schools where salaries are highest.