4 ms·

This kind of BS analyses are exactly the root of the current problems with the higher education system (insane tuition, CS majors who can't do fizbuzz etc.) - b

by zeteo 13y ago

This kind of BS analyses are exactly the root of the current problems with the higher education system (insane tuition, CS majors who can't do fizbuzz etc.) - because they are self-fulfilling prophecies. For comparison, let's imagine that some evil marketing genius decides to examine the corresponding statistical impacts of wearing a business suit. "Our data indicate that people who wear a business suit to work earn a career average of $1M extra over people who don't. Considering many quality suits cost under $2000, this results into a higher than 100:1 return on investment." Before long, tailor shops are doing a booming business, wearing a $400 suit becomes a faux pas, and candidates get dismissed early from interviews because they showed up with an Armani at a Dolce&Gabbana shop. People no longer care whether a suit is useful or even comfortable in their line of work, and prices shoot through the roof for apparel that offers little beyond a famous label. I don't know who started the trend of promoting flawed statistical studies [1] in this regard, but if they worked for higher education they must have been a very evil marketing genius indeed. [1] Why are people who couldn't go to college lumped to bring down those who wouldn't? Is "college" a monolithical category where e.g. differences between majors matter much less than four years's experience in specific industries?

ppereira 13y ago
There are many students who have a choice between a state school and a private school, or an Ivy League school and a top school near their home, or an engineering degree and an arts degree. I think a detailed study of career outcomes and cost of schooling is incredibly valuable. Your suit analogy is flawed. Students invest in a program and later earn money in their chosen career. In your suit example, the ignoramus already has a job and then chooses to buy an unnecessary suit. There are many subtleties to an analysis like this. You mention choice of work experience. I would add that the calculation of lifetime earnings is also suspect since far fewer people went to college 30 years ago than today. But please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. We should look at studies like this.
- zeteo 13y ago
  >Students invest in a program and later earn money in their chosen career And also they invest in a suit and later earn money when they show up at work wearing it. There are definitely professions in which nobody will take them seriously without a nice business suit. Conversely, I think we can agree that many if not most classes taken in college have little bearing on the eventual job.
  - rjbwork 13y ago
    I dunno, I would say my web programming, data structures, and algorithms classes have direct application to what I'm doing now. Compilers/software engineering also taught me quite a few design patterns. Graphics taught me about the idiosyncrasies of display systems and using coordinate systems in a complicated way to create complex images or systems of graphical entities. I could go on, but I think most STEM classes have direct application to work in those fields.
- xerophtye 13y ago
  Well i think you misunderstood the analogy. let me try to explain a bit. What he means to say is that a Suit is one thing most high earning people HAVE. But they are not necessarily earning high BECAUSE of the suit. "The suit doesn't make the man". But if hypothetically people were ingrained with the idea that it's the SUIT that sets your value! Then of course things would get out of hand like he said. Now let's look at college. Most really talented and smart people go to college. And then later they excel in their careers. So what is really the COLLEGE due to which they were awesome? Or just like the suits, was it simply a matter of Highly talented people going to college? Now since all of us have been taught that it's the COLLEGE that makes who you are, the education industry in this weird state.
hawkharris 13y ago
I'm interested in your critique, but I don't see any research-based evidence in your comment that disproves the claims made in the article. Will you elaborate on your comment and provide links to show why the author's statistical analysis is flawed?
- thejteam 13y ago
  One flaw is the failure to control for intelligence. Or socioeconomic background. Or any number of other factors that influence lifetime earnings that also positively correlate with college attendance. If you were to only look at people who grow up in a very-middle class household (a very ill-defined term I admit) and who scored in the X to Y percentile (not sure what good numbers would be) on some measure of intelligence then I am nor sure that the numbers would be clearly in favor of college.
  - randomdata 13y ago
    Additionally, to observe the value of a college education, you have to compare it to education received without going to college, while excluding the people who choose to not go to college because they were not interested in furthering their education. The high school graduate that spends hours every evening scouring the internet, or the library, for educational purposes is not comparable the person of equal formal education who goes home to watch sitcom TV each night.
btilly 13y ago
You did not read the article all the way through, nor did the people who voted you up. If you had, you would have encountered references to a variety of studies that attempt to control for going to college as opposed to other predictive factors using things like twin studies. They have found that the impact of college is less than simple analyses show, but the largest contribution to the difference between college graduates and non-graduates is college itself.
- nchuhoai 13y ago
  A lot of the people here are IMO rightfully criticizing that not more thought has been given to the possibility that being able to get into college and pay for college is simply a good indicator for a lifetime premium in earnings. The only point I found in this article is the FSU study in which they try to control against factors by comparing students who barely made the cut. They came out with a 11% rate of return. (I looked up the study but couldn't find whether it refers to 11% return on the monthly salary or lifetime earnings) It's left for us to decide whether this is a significant enough, especially given the option value of college and lack of alternatives to college. P.S.: 75k (the cost of attending FSU) invested in a currently 3.7 treasury bond yields 118k after 30 years.
  - randomdata 13y ago
    > P.S.: 75k (the cost of attending FSU) Don't forget the additional $120K that the average high school graduate will earn during those years, assuming a four year program.
- zeteo 13y ago
  Oh I've read the article, and many like it. I'm not sure you've read my comment carefully though, because you seem to be missing the main point. Such studies are largely invalidated by their very influence on the phenomenon they purport to describe. Do you think the applicants' belief they would earn 45% (or 70%, or 90%) more has no bearing on the labor and loan markets?
  - beambot 13y ago
Patrick_Devine 13y ago
Somehow I doubt Priceonomics is going to move the needle on anything one way or the other. I really doubt many people would forgo getting a degree based on any kind of statistical evidence. Going to college is often an emotional choice and not a logical choice. Regardless, their conclusion seemed to me fairly tempered. They acknowledged learning through MOOCs, but talked about the positive externalities of physically being at college. They also said the price of college was far too high, so I'm not sure how your comment relates to the article.
brey 13y ago
anyone can buy a suit. not anyone can complete a 4 year degree from MIT; employers know this, and use it as a signal to show intelligence.

by zeteo 13y ago

ppereira 13y ago

There are many students who have a choice between a state school and a private school, or an Ivy League school and a top school near their home, or an engineering degree and an arts degree. I think a detailed study of career outcomes and cost of schooling is incredibly valuable. Your suit analogy is flawed. Students invest in a program and later earn money in their chosen career. In your suit example, the ignoramus already has a job and then chooses to buy an unnecessary suit. There are many subtleties to an analysis like this. You mention choice of work experience. I would add that the calculation of lifetime earnings is also suspect since far fewer people went to college 30 years ago than today. But please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. We should look at studies like this.

zeteo 13y ago
>Students invest in a program and later earn money in their chosen career And also they invest in a suit and later earn money when they show up at work wearing it. There are definitely professions in which nobody will take them seriously without a nice business suit. Conversely, I think we can agree that many if not most classes taken in college have little bearing on the eventual job.
- rjbwork 13y ago
  I dunno, I would say my web programming, data structures, and algorithms classes have direct application to what I'm doing now. Compilers/software engineering also taught me quite a few design patterns. Graphics taught me about the idiosyncrasies of display systems and using coordinate systems in a complicated way to create complex images or systems of graphical entities. I could go on, but I think most STEM classes have direct application to work in those fields.
xerophtye 13y ago
Well i think you misunderstood the analogy. let me try to explain a bit. What he means to say is that a Suit is one thing most high earning people HAVE. But they are not necessarily earning high BECAUSE of the suit. "The suit doesn't make the man". But if hypothetically people were ingrained with the idea that it's the SUIT that sets your value! Then of course things would get out of hand like he said. Now let's look at college. Most really talented and smart people go to college. And then later they excel in their careers. So what is really the COLLEGE due to which they were awesome? Or just like the suits, was it simply a matter of Highly talented people going to college? Now since all of us have been taught that it's the COLLEGE that makes who you are, the education industry in this weird state.

hawkharris 13y ago

I'm interested in your critique, but I don't see any research-based evidence in your comment that disproves the claims made in the article. Will you elaborate on your comment and provide links to show why the author's statistical analysis is flawed?

thejteam 13y ago
One flaw is the failure to control for intelligence. Or socioeconomic background. Or any number of other factors that influence lifetime earnings that also positively correlate with college attendance. If you were to only look at people who grow up in a very-middle class household (a very ill-defined term I admit) and who scored in the X to Y percentile (not sure what good numbers would be) on some measure of intelligence then I am nor sure that the numbers would be clearly in favor of college.
- randomdata 13y ago
  Additionally, to observe the value of a college education, you have to compare it to education received without going to college, while excluding the people who choose to not go to college because they were not interested in furthering their education. The high school graduate that spends hours every evening scouring the internet, or the library, for educational purposes is not comparable the person of equal formal education who goes home to watch sitcom TV each night.

btilly 13y ago

You did not read the article all the way through, nor did the people who voted you up. If you had, you would have encountered references to a variety of studies that attempt to control for going to college as opposed to other predictive factors using things like twin studies. They have found that the impact of college is less than simple analyses show, but the largest contribution to the difference between college graduates and non-graduates is college itself.

nchuhoai 13y ago
A lot of the people here are IMO rightfully criticizing that not more thought has been given to the possibility that being able to get into college and pay for college is simply a good indicator for a lifetime premium in earnings. The only point I found in this article is the FSU study in which they try to control against factors by comparing students who barely made the cut. They came out with a 11% rate of return. (I looked up the study but couldn't find whether it refers to 11% return on the monthly salary or lifetime earnings) It's left for us to decide whether this is a significant enough, especially given the option value of college and lack of alternatives to college. P.S.: 75k (the cost of attending FSU) invested in a currently 3.7 treasury bond yields 118k after 30 years.
- randomdata 13y ago
  > P.S.: 75k (the cost of attending FSU) Don't forget the additional $120K that the average high school graduate will earn during those years, assuming a four year program.
zeteo 13y ago
Oh I've read the article, and many like it. I'm not sure you've read my comment carefully though, because you seem to be missing the main point. Such studies are largely invalidated by their very influence on the phenomenon they purport to describe. Do you think the applicants' belief they would earn 45% (or 70%, or 90%) more has no bearing on the labor and loan markets?
- beambot 13y ago

Patrick_Devine 13y ago

Somehow I doubt Priceonomics is going to move the needle on anything one way or the other. I really doubt many people would forgo getting a degree based on any kind of statistical evidence. Going to college is often an emotional choice and not a logical choice. Regardless, their conclusion seemed to me fairly tempered. They acknowledged learning through MOOCs, but talked about the positive externalities of physically being at college. They also said the price of college was far too high, so I'm not sure how your comment relates to the article.

brey 13y ago

anyone can buy a suit. not anyone can complete a 4 year degree from MIT; employers know this, and use it as a signal to show intelligence.