Like us, AI needs memory storage and cognition. We can’t compete with AI in memory storage, but we can still beat AI in cognitive abilities, until AGI comes along someday (and there’s no sign of it yet).
We already know that high income does seem to correlate with increased chances of admission to top schools. These authors now also claim this:
“Using a new research design that isolates idiosyncratic variation in admissions decisions for waitlisted applicants, we show that attending an Ivy-Plus college instead of the average highly selective public flagship institution increases students’ chances of reaching the top 1% of the earnings distribution by 60%, nearly doubles their chances of attending an elite graduate school, and triples their chances of working at a prestigious firm. Ivy-Plus colleges have much smaller causal effects on average earnings, reconciling our findings with prior work that found smaller causal effects using variation in matriculation decisions conditional on admission. Adjusting for the value-added of the colleges that students attend, the three key factors that give children from high-income families an admissions advantage are uncorrelated or negatively correlated with post-college outcomes, whereas SAT/ACT scores and academic credentials are highly predictive of post-college success. We conclude that highly selective private colleges currently amplify the persistence of privilege across generations, but could diversify the socioeconomic backgrounds of America’s leaders by changing their admissions practices.”
Ok- go! 
I do wonder if it is a chicken or egg thing.
A student who goes to an Ivy-plus may have put more value on that type of school to begin with— and likewise put more value on “elite” graduate school programs or “top” firms. In other words, these are students to whom brand names matter the most. In addition, after spending top dollar for an Ivy-plus, they may have greater incentive to pursue the very highest paying jobs post-graduation regardless of work-life balance, etc.
In contrast, another highly capable student may care less about getting a degree from a prestigious institution and prefer to get a less expensive degree, perhaps opening them up to more freedom to select a career where they can be successful but work fewer hours or in a preferred city.
In other words, does this data suggest that non-Ivy students are being shut out of opportunities or does it suggest they are self-selecting to not participate in them? I suspect the answer is a mix of both.
2 Likes
One of the public university dean told me: Imagine a hospital where only healthy patients come, the patients would all be healthy getting out. Is it fair to compare it with a hospital where patients with health conditions come for actual treatment. It is similar for many top universities as well. We need better indicators to measure the outcomes of college education which takes into consideration the input. Are colleges just doing selection or are they also focusing on development. In the end, my belief is that although a some amount depends on the college you go to, a lot depends on what you do and how you leverage your education.
3 Likes
This probably could have warranted its own new thread, but just adding it here for now. The Times has some more granular family income info from the Chetty study, with their usual cool lookup/data viz tools. Gift link
2 Likes
deleted
Some of the charts they broke out really emphasize how much of the top 1% thing is self-selection. High numbers 1% kids are apparently selecting more into privates and certain flagships. And actually, as I recall, most of the top 1% effect at flagships was driven by OOS students, with in-state students mostly not having such a pronounced top 1% effect.
So, here is a shocker–the most expensive options are the ones with the highest amount of self-selection by top 1% kids.
Also known as the “rich parents buy nicer things for their kids” effect.
5 Likes
Here’s a list of (most) private schools included in the NYT article. Fascinating how the percentages for the PA schools ride together:
| SCHOOL | TOP 1% |
|---|---|
| COLGATE | 23 |
| DARTMOUTH | 23 |
| TRINITY | 23 |
| WAKE FOREST | 23 |
| WASH & LEE | 23 |
| WASH U STL | 23 |
| DUKE | 22 |
| BUCKNELL | 21 |
| VANDY | 21 |
| GEORGETOWN | 20 |
| MIDDLEBURY | 20 |
| PENN | 20 |
| RICHMOND | 20 |
| BOSTON COLL | 19 |
| COLBY | 19 |
| WILLIAMS | 19 |
| BATES | 18 |
| BOWDOIN | 18 |
| BROWN | 18 |
| CLERMONT | 18 |
| DAVIDSON | 18 |
| HAMILTON | 18 |
| KENYON | 18 |
| NWESTERN | 18 |
| YALE | 17 |
| AMHERST | 17 |
| SCRIPPS | 17 |
| STANFORD | 17 |
| TUFTS | 17 |
| NOTRE DAME | 17 |
| WESLEYAN | 17 |
| LAFAYETTE | 16 |
| BARNARD | 15 |
| FRANKLIN/MAR | 15 |
| HARVARD | 15 |
| HAVERFORD | 15 |
| LEHIGH | 15 |
| PRINCETON | 15 |
| SANTA CLARA | 15 |
| U MIAMI | 15 |
| USC | 15 |
| VILLANOVA | 15 |
| COLUMBIA | 13 |
| CORNELL | 11 |
| NYU | 11 |
| MIT | 8 |
2 Likes
By the way, it is probably worth noting the data in the NYT is getting pretty old at this point. As it says in the note, “Incomes are measured from the parent income tax records of college attendees who took standardized tests and were on track to graduate high school in 2011, 2013 or 2015.”
And I know in cases like WUSTL, they got a lot of bad PR about this back in that era, and since have been doing a lot to try to diversify their students in these dimensions. Their latest policy to this effect, just announced, is to go no-loan in their need-based aid, but that is just the last in a long line of efforts that have occurred since this data was collected.
Just something to keep in mind.
2 Likes
It depends on which stat you find more interesting, the 1% share or the Pell Grant share. The number of Pell Grant recipients share has been updated to reflect the incoming class of 2020-2021 compared with the 2010-2011 share:
Great catch, @NiceUnparticularMan Makes sense.
Yes, sorry, my comment should have been specific to the charts in the NYT article breaking down the college classes by parental income. Not everything in the article is from that era, but that particular data is.
2 Likes
Not sure why there is so much attention given to this. Students should attend the schools where they fit in the best, right?
1 Like
For most students, choice of college is mostly constrained by affordability, and then secondarily by where they can get admitted to.
Feeling that you fit in the best at a college does not help you attend if you cannot afford it or cannot get admitted to it.
6 Likes
But that’s the point—go where you can afford to go.
1 Like
Doesn’t that effectively endorse a system of the “best” colleges being for the rich (and “scholarship” kids)? While the middle-class kids can go to other schools where they “fit” but are “known” to be lesser schools by all the rich kids at the “elite” schools?
I think that is effectively what is happening but I don’t endorse it.
2 Likes
These are luxury brands, and you pay up for them.
1 Like
But generally no one is going to judge you as less capable because you could not afford designer shoes. Too often people believe someone who paid for a “designer” school is more capable when in reality it often comes down to parent income.
1 Like
The best students anywhere will thrive—that’s what the data show. It’s not the school that makes the student, it’s the student who makes the student…
1 Like
I agree — but then why does anyone pay up for the luxury brand if smart kids can succeed anywhere? They do it because they believe the name has value — even if the value is primarily one of snob appeal, separating those who “belong” in the circles of the wealthy from the middle class chaff who can theoretically succeed anywhere but don’t “fit” with their wealthier peers.
1 Like