<p>A lot of nonsense in these posts. $250K in NY is the equivalent of $100K in some other places.</p>
<p>Check out CFO of Lehman, graduated from NYU Law school and
EX-CEO of Citigroup, graduated from USC Law school. None of these people went into investment banking directly after college.</p>
<p>
[quote]
$250K in NY is the equivalent of $100K
[/quote]
</p>
<p>you just made that up---its all how you want to live. NYC is more expensive, but there is higher salary opportunities and a lot of luxuries are available. Still your comment is off...maybe its = to 175 k</p>
<p>It depends on your location. $100K for midwest and $175K for CA.</p>
<p>Ok so everyone wants facts. Here is why it pays to go to an elite university.</p>
<p>Scroll down in link to "the benefits of attending an elite college"</p>
<p>The</a> Early Admissions Game: Joining ... - Google Book Search</p>
<p>
This means only one thing: that you did not bother to read the D&K paper, but are merely parroting what you read in some of the posts here. I must admit that until tonight I was guilty of a similar sin --- repeating what other people have written about the study without reading it myself. I have just finished reading it, and have concluded that it is NOT the most misquoted study as Bestcarze claims. In fact, the exact opposite it true, the conclusions of the study are exactly what they have been reported in mass-circulation rags. In partiruclar:</p>
<p>1) Yes, there is a significant correlation between attending "brand-name" schools and future earnings.
2) This correlation disappears once you control for unobservable variables such as innate ability, as measured by the schools that accepted you rather than where you chose to attend.</p>
<p>After reading the paper carefully, I did stumble on what looks to be a notable lack of internal consistency. D&K used SAT score to judge the quality of the schools when they were correcting for unobservable variables, yet their own study concludes that SAT is not a good predictor of school quality. Not sure if they made an attempt to control for that, I just don't have time to read the fine print carefully enough to determine that.</p>
<p>Columbia_Student: You do realize the average salary of those in NYC was $48,980 in 2006. Perhaps now it is around 50k. That is not that much higher than a lot of other places (such as Northern Virginia). How would these people live according to your proposed salary ratio?</p>
<p>If NYC really was that much more expensive, I guess their 50k average salary is about 20k elsewhere? Geez.. everyone in NYC is living minimal wage standards!!</p>
<p>If anything, look at places like Northern Virginia (Mclean, Langley, Fairfax). A house with no backyard of moderate size is 1 million average and it costs me 50-80 bucks to take my girlfriend out to Tysons Corner for dinner. The average salary of parents for the kids that go to public schools in the area are above six figures (around 110k).</p>
<p>A house with no backyard of moderate size will set you back much more than $1M in NYC, or at least in Manhattan. What CS describes is actually not very far from the truth for many people making $60k. Within the past month there was an article in the NYT about recent grads trying to make it in the city, and the tactics they employ to afford living in Manhattan. It was a pretty grim picture of getting squeezed between a $1500 rent for a single room, skipping dinner, getting haircuts only when going back home to the midwest, the list just went on.</p>
<p>Has anybody stopped to consider the bias in the general pool of applicants that would turn down a higher ranked school?</p>
<p>Number one reason, not enough money!</p>
<p>Students from the lower class will make up the overwhelming majority of those turning down better schools for less expensive state schools and the like. That would explain why when he study compares only within applicants of the upper middle class the correlation dissappears. </p>
<p>Also, the lower income you have, studies have shown, the more your learning and earnings is influenced by where you go to school. </p>
<p>In fact, the prestige of a university has the largest effect on income for black students, even larger than for poor students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And elite schools being the Top 100? You're joking. At best, the elite schools are the US News Top 25 - 30 National Universities, and Top 5 LACs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I wouldn't say top 100, but certainly LACs 6-20 have as strong a student body as national universities 16-30.</p>
<p>gellino,
The student quality at the LACs 6-20 and National Universities 16-30 is really not that consistent and this thought even extends beyond these numerical boundaries. </p>
<p>I looked at the LACs ranked 6-25 and the National Universities ranked 14-40 and this is how they compare on the common metric of standardized test scores. </p>
<p>Avg SAT , Avg ACT , ( USNWR Ranking ) , College</p>
<p>1495 , na , ( 14 LAC ) , Harvey Mudd
1455 , 31.5 , ( 6 LAC ) , Pomona</p>
<p>1430 , 30.5 , ( 16 Nat ) , Brown
1420 , 31.5 , ( 17 Nat ) , Rice
1415 , 31 , ( 28 Nat ) , Tufts
1405 , 32.5 , ( 18 Nat ) , Notre Dame
1400 , 31 , ( 8 LAC ) , Carleton
1400 , 31 , ( 11 LAC ) , Claremont McK</p>
<p>1395 , 30 , ( 14 Nat ) , Cornell
1395 , 30.5 , ( 15 Nat ) , Johns Hopkins
1395 , 30.5 , ( 23 Nat ) , Georgetown
1395 , 29.5 , ( 13 LAC ) , Wesleyan
1390 , 31 , ( 18 Nat ) , Vanderbilt
1390 , 30 , ( 22 Nat ) , Carnegie Mellon
1390 , na , ( 10 LAC ) , Haverford
1385 , 31 , ( 18 Nat ) , Emory
1385 , 31 , ( 6 LAC ) , Bowdoin
1385 , 30.5 , ( 11 LAC ) , Vassar
1385 , 29.5 , ( 17 LAC ) , W&L</p>
<p>1370 , 30 , ( 31 Nat ) , Brandeis
1370 , na , ( 20 LAC ) , Hamilton
1365 , 30 , ( 27 Nat ) , USC
1365 , 29.5 , ( 20 LAC ) , Oberlin
1360 , 31 , ( 14 LAC ) , Grinnell
1360 , 29.5 , ( 23 LAC ) , Colby
1355 , 30 , ( 9 LAC ) , Davidson</p>
<p>1350 , 29.5 , ( 32 Nat ) , W&M
1345 , na , ( 21 Nat ) , UC Berkeley
1345 , 30 , ( 25 LAC ) , Macalester
1340 , 30.5 , ( 18 LAC ) , Colgate
1335 , 29.5 , ( 33 Nat ) , NYU
1335 , 30 , ( 34 Nat ) , Boston Coll
1335 , na , ( 25 LAC ) , Bates
1330 , 29 , ( 35 Nat ) , Georgia Tech</p>
<p>1325 , 29 , ( 28 Nat ) , Wake Forest
1325 , 29 , ( 35 Nat ) , U Rochester
1320 , 29 , ( 26 Nat ) , U Michigan
1315 , na , ( 35 Nat ) , Lehigh
1310 , na , ( 23 Nat ) , U Virginia
1310 , 28 , ( 23 LAC ) , Bryn Mawr
1305 , 27.5 , ( 25 Nat ) , UCLA
1305 , 28.5 , ( 30 Nat ) , U North Carolina</p>
<p>1290 , 28.5 , ( 40 Nat ) , U Illinois
1275 , 28 , ( 35 Nat ) , U Wisconsin
1265 , 27.5 , ( 18 LAC ) , Smith
1255 , na , ( 22 LAC ) , US Naval Acad
1245 , 26 , ( 35 Nat ) , UCSD
1230 , 27.5 , ( 14 LAC ) , US Military Acad</p>
<p>and here is how they compare based on ACT scores:</p>
<p>Avg ACT , Avg SAT , ( USNWR Ranking ) , College</p>
<p>32.5 , 1405 , ( 18 Nat ) , Notre Dame</p>
<p>31.5 , 1455 , ( 6 LAC ) , Pomona
31.5 , 1420 , ( 17 Nat ) , Rice</p>
<p>31 , 1415 , ( 28 Nat ) , Tufts
31 , 1400 , ( 8 LAC ) , Carleton
31 , 1400 , ( 11 LAC ) , Claremont McK
31 , 1390 , ( 18 Nat ) , Vanderbilt
31 , 1385 , ( 18 Nat ) , Emory
31 , 1385 , ( 6 LAC ) , Bowdoin
31 , 1360 , ( 14 LAC ) , Grinnell</p>
<p>30.5 , 1430 , ( 16 Nat ) , Brown
30.5 , 1395 , ( 15 Nat ) , Johns Hopkins
30.5 , 1395 , ( 23 Nat ) , Georgetown
30.5 , 1385 , ( 11 LAC ) , Vassar
30.5 , 1340 , ( 18 LAC ) , Colgate</p>
<p>30 , 1395 , ( 14 Nat ) , Cornell
30 , 1390 , ( 22 Nat ) , Carnegie Mellon
30 , 1370 , ( 31 Nat ) , Brandeis
30 , 1365 , ( 27 Nat ) , USC
30 , 1355 , ( 9 LAC ) , Davidson
30 , 1345 , ( 25 LAC ) , Macalester
30 , 1335 , ( 34 Nat ) , Boston Coll</p>
<p>29.5 , 1395 , ( 13 LAC ) , Wesleyan
29.5 , 1385 , ( 17 LAC ) , W&L
29.5 , 1365 , ( 20 LAC ) , Oberlin
29.5 , 1360 , ( 23 LAC ) , Colby
29.5 , 1350 , ( 32 Nat ) , W&M
29.5 , 1335 , ( 33 Nat ) , NYU</p>
<p>29 , 1330 , ( 35 Nat ) , Georgia Tech
29 , 1325 , ( 28 Nat ) , Wake Forest
29 , 1325 , ( 35 Nat ) , U Rochester
29 , 1320 , ( 26 Nat ) , U Michigan</p>
<p>28.5 , 1305 , ( 30 Nat ) , U North Carolina
28.5 , 1290 , ( 40 Nat ) , U Illinois</p>
<p>28 , 1310 , ( 23 LAC ) , Bryn Mawr
28 , 1275 , ( 35 Nat ) , U Wisconsin</p>
<p>27.5 , 1305 , ( 25 Nat ) , UCLA
27.5 , 1265 , ( 18 LAC ) , Smith
27.5 , 1230 , ( 14 LAC ) , US Military Acad</p>
<p>26 , 1245 , ( 35 Nat ) , UCSD</p>
<p>na , 1495 , ( 14 LAC ) , Harvey Mudd
na , 1390 , ( 10 LAC ) , Haverford
na , 1370 , ( 20 LAC ) , Hamilton
na , 1345 , ( 21 Nat ) , UC Berkeley
na , 1335 , ( 25 LAC ) , Bates
na , 1315 , ( 35 Nat ) , Lehigh
na , 1310 , ( 23 Nat ) , U Virginia
na , 1255 , ( 22 LAC ) , US Naval Acad</p>
<p>Your point being by SAT scores they win out I assume. Yet, by elite in the terms of prestige. It would be 1-5/6 for LACs and 1-25/30 for National Universities. Some people even think its smaller than that ie top 3 and top 15. Sat scores only measure so much, maybe it would have made sense to at least put acceptance rates as well.</p>
<p>
[quote]
gellino,
The student quality at the LACs 6-20 and National Universities 16-30 is really not that consistent and this thought even extends beyond these numerical boundaries.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Right, that was my point. To imply that national university #27 has a stronger student body or is a better school than LAC #8 is generally inaccurate (and many times the reverse), but seems to be a common misconception on here.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yet, by elite in the terms of prestige. It would be 1-5/6 for LACs and 1-25/30 for National Universities. Some people even think its smaller than that ie top 3 and top 15. Sat scores only measure so much, maybe it would have made sense to at least put acceptance rates as well.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It depends what you mean by prestige. I would be more impressed by someone saying they went to Wesleyan than someone saying that went to USC, even though the average person has much more likely heard of USC and USC is #27 in USNWR in nat'l univs and Wesleyan is #12 for LACs. That doesn't really mean much to me. The average person has also heard of UGeorgia more than they've of Dartmouth, but doesn't change the fact (to me anyway) that it's a lot more impressive to go to Dartmouth. I think including acceptance rates are even more going to bear this lack of a discrepancy out.</p>
<p>bescraze,
I chose SAT/ACT scores because of their standardized nature. I personally think that Acceptance Rates are not nearly as reflective of student quality and much more akin to an adolescent popularity race. Consider a few comparisons:</p>
<p>Columbia
1360-1540 = SAT 25/75
11% = Acceptance Rate</p>
<p>Duke
1340-1540 = SAT 25/75
23% = Acceptance Rate</p>
<p>U Chicago
1330-1530 = SAT 25/75
35% = Acceptance Rate</p>
<p>Is there a material difference in the student quality at these three schools? I doubt it very much, but using their Acceptance Rate as an indication might incorrectly lead one to that conclusion.</p>