4 ms·

The present value of math skills is not just Q-N, because there are confounding factors. For example, do smarter people gravitate to quantitative careers? Do mo

The present value of math skills is not just Q-N, because there are confounding factors. For example, do smarter people gravitate to quantitative careers? Do more ambitious people select quantitative careers? Do people with a better starting environment in life receive the necessary encouragement and guidance to pursue a quantitative career versus those with worse starting environments? I have no answer to those questions, but they are all at least credible concerns. To fairly answer the OP's question, we'd have to observe people who exhibit all the qualities of a person selecting a quantitative career, but who have not actually done so. This is similar to the problem of measuring the returns on attending elite colleges versus standard colleges. Measured by comparing the earnings of elite graduates versus standard graduates, it appears that there is a high return. But measured by tracking earnings of those who earned admission to elite colleges, but instead chose standard colleges, the difference disappears: there is no incremental return, for a person qualified to attend an elite college, for doing so. We may have a similar problem here. Any ideas on the best way to measure this?

tokenadult 17y ago
Do people with a better starting environment in life receive the necessary encouragement and guidance to pursue a quantitative career versus those with worse starting environments? The known fact (well known to economists of education) that advantaged young people are more likely to pursue and complete college degrees is indeed a confound here. http://www.jkcf.org/assets/files/0000/0084/Achievement_Trap.pdf http://www.jkcf.org/assets/files/0000/0084/Achievement_Trap.... So, yes, when any of the helpful links that have been submitted in replies in this thread report that college graduates, or college graduates of a particular kind, have higher incomes than other college graduates, or than people who didn't graduate from college at all, it may be that college didn't cause the difference. Maybe the environmental advantages that PRECEDED college caused the difference in lifetime outcomes. But as OP I am indeed asking what a parent should think about how much to spend to ensure precollege advantages. It looks like HUGE expenditures in childhood to ensure children's success in college preparation and especially in math preparation are well warranted. measured by tracking earnings of those who earned admission to elite colleges, but instead chose standard colleges, the difference disappears: there is no incremental return, for a person qualified to attend an elite college, for doing so. This is the generally announced result of the Krueger-Dale study, but I agree with the critics of the study http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/03/college-prestige-matters.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/03/college-prestige-matte... (previously submitted to HN) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=379801 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=379801 (a footnote in this study criticizes the Dale-Krueger study methodology and data analysis) that the correct conclusion is that attending the best available college is plainly beneficial for students from low-income families, and perhaps beneficial for all students.
- mediaman 17y ago
  I read through your notes on the Dale-Krueger study and found them educational. I was not aware that their study's results indicated the opposite of the general conclusion it's often cited to support -- particularly when measured against tuition costs or Barron's rankings. Your revised question (is it worth investing in pre-college advantages?) is slightly different than the original question (what is the value of a quantitative career?). I would agree with you that pre-college advantages tend to have very high returns.

tokenadult 17y ago

Do people with a better starting environment in life receive the necessary encouragement and guidance to pursue a quantitative career versus those with worse starting environments? The known fact (well known to economists of education) that advantaged young people are more likely to pursue and complete college degrees is indeed a confound here. http://www.jkcf.org/assets/files/0000/0084/Achievement_Trap.pdf http://www.jkcf.org/assets/files/0000/0084/Achievement_Trap.... So, yes, when any of the helpful links that have been submitted in replies in this thread report that college graduates, or college graduates of a particular kind, have higher incomes than other college graduates, or than people who didn't graduate from college at all, it may be that college didn't cause the difference. Maybe the environmental advantages that PRECEDED college caused the difference in lifetime outcomes. But as OP I am indeed asking what a parent should think about how much to spend to ensure precollege advantages. It looks like HUGE expenditures in childhood to ensure children's success in college preparation and especially in math preparation are well warranted. measured by tracking earnings of those who earned admission to elite colleges, but instead chose standard colleges, the difference disappears: there is no incremental return, for a person qualified to attend an elite college, for doing so. This is the generally announced result of the Krueger-Dale study, but I agree with the critics of the study http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/03/college-prestige-matters.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/03/college-prestige-matte... (previously submitted to HN) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=379801 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=379801 (a footnote in this study criticizes the Dale-Krueger study methodology and data analysis) that the correct conclusion is that attending the best available college is plainly beneficial for students from low-income families, and perhaps beneficial for all students.

mediaman 17y ago
I read through your notes on the Dale-Krueger study and found them educational. I was not aware that their study's results indicated the opposite of the general conclusion it's often cited to support -- particularly when measured against tuition costs or Barron's rankings. Your revised question (is it worth investing in pre-college advantages?) is slightly different than the original question (what is the value of a quantitative career?). I would agree with you that pre-college advantages tend to have very high returns.