<p>mikemac is correct that the study is not definitive and has been challenged. Nonetheless, I think that we can say the following qualitatively, based upon his work as well as the critical work by others: the income differentials are not huge when you correct for as many unobservables as possible, and the effects are strongest when you look at low income students.</p>
<p>In my view, the other problems of the paper are not as important as the issue of using total salaries as the measure of outcome differences from going to top schools. As I emphasized status and rank issues are often the bigger payoffs. [e.g. Getting to be a top law professor vs. high income lawyer in small town.] Further, even the income measures don't correct for cost of living in different cities etc. If the elite grads end up more on the two coasts then factoring in a cost of living difference would deflate their income gains even more. Overall, even the critical studies of Kruger and Dale suggest that even if ALL you care about is money, the differences are not as big as you might think. The real gains are to networking and access and these are greatest for the poorest.</p>
<p>That's why it's important to treat these studies not as guides to some platonic ideal formula but rather as qualitative evidence of what is significant and in what direction. And for all their problems, they are an improvement on personal anecdotes about who did well and went to which school. I was objecting to the constant back and forth on those grounds which you always see on CC.</p>