<p>That study has many flaws and stands in opposition to almost all the other studies that conclude there is a payoff. I find it funny that people who already hold a certain view are happy to disregard all the other evidence in favor of one study that purports to support their view. So of course no link to the studies that DID find a correlation. Another great example is the 9/11 conspiracy theorists; if you use google and find one of their sites you'll see them prominently quote witnesses who say a missile strike the Pentagon; they never quote the hundreds of witnesses who saw a plane strike the Pentagon.</p>
<p>If you read the study you find out what Krueger really did is lump schools into baskets of average SAT scores, and that with the number of baskets he used he found no income effect. For a more detailed discussion of what Krueger did see my post #44 at <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=145732&page=3&pp=15%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=145732&page=3&pp=15</a>
Krueger, BTW, is the same guy who "found" that raising the minimum wage has no effect on unemployment, a conclusion roundly rejected by most other economists.</p>
<p>And ponder the following quote
[quote]
the Barron's rating of school selectivity and the tuition charged by the school are significantly related to the student's subsequent earnings
[/quote]
This quote comes from the paper right on the author's site!! see <a href="http://www.irs.princeton.edu/pubs/pdfs/409.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.irs.princeton.edu/pubs/pdfs/409.pdf</a></p>
<p>Why does everyone keep hating on the elite schools so much?</p>
<p>Well, it's certainly not necessary to go to an elite school to make a lot of money (my dad went to a state school and would be a good example). However, students at elite schools are generally intellectuals, who are generally idealists, who generally care about more than just making money. And yes, educations at top schools are more rigorous, and you might learn more (if you work hard). So there are other benefits to be had besides money, and I think people who go to top schools realize/believe this.</p>
<p>Some states have increased the minimum wage above the Fed minimum. Do you have any evidence to support your claim that they have higher unemployment?</p>
<p>Basically, it's common sense. If you're going into a program that is low paying anyways, go to a state school. On the other hand, if you want to get a JD, go to a top-tier private.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Basically, it's common sense. If you're going into a program that is low paying anyways, go to a state school. On the other hand, if you want to get a JD, go to a top-tier private.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>On so many different levels that makes no sense whatsoever.</p>
<p>My dad went to a state school, and now he is a successful lawyer, making around 400-500 thousand a year. So there ya go.</p>
<p>Mike, </p>
<p>It is unlikely that the difference between Krueger and Dale and others is that that 25 point SAT bands contained schools of varying quality. If the differences within these narrow bands were important, then it is likely that the much larger differences between bands would have shown up quite clearly.</p>
<p>Since SAT bands are certainly associated with selectivity and elitism, it is also unlikely that the exceptions were the reason K&D got different results than have others.</p>
<p>It is possible that the second round of selection effects eliminated the SAT effect. All these studies attempt to predict what would have happened had students gone to a college other than the one ther attened. For this reason they must assume that the kids who were admitted to Princeton but went to State had the same career prospects at that point as those who had the same choice, but went to Princeton. Then compare where they ended up decades later, and attribute the difference to the Princeton vs State effect. But these students did not sort randomly to P or S. Each made a decision based on a highly individualized appraisal of the relative cost and value of each alternative. In other words, those students who turned down P to go to S may have had specific and valid reason for concluding that they were better off at S, and they were right. In fact, the better high school students perform in making this prediction the less effect one would see from college attended. Those who would be better off at P (most of them) go to P. The few who would be better off at S go to S. If students predicted this perfectly, and acted upon it, there would be no observable effect of attending P vs S. This does not mean that if you switched a random sample of students between P and S you would see no effect.</p>
<p>It is also possible that the problem was not that K&D's SAT groups were too varied, but that they were too homogeneous. They note that students tend to apply colleges in their own SAT bands, and that the places they attend are even closer to their own SAT scores than where they apply. If you have few students who go to college far outside their range, it becomes difficult to predict what would have happened if they had.</p>
<p>If you combine the first selection effect of students choosing what appears to them to be the best choice with the second effect that, in aggregate, they choose colleges in their SAT range, the the variation outside these bounds is limited, and may explain little. </p>
<p>The Barron's findings might reflect the same problem. Perhaps the more ambitious, harder charging students when given a choice, choose the more elite school. They remain hard charging and ambitious the rest of their lives, and make more money, not because of anything that happened at Stanford, but because of who they were when they enrolled. K&D's Barron's data would show a college effect for the matched data, but this would be because the students were not really matched, they differed in the decisions they made about where to go to school. This difference would be a proxy for their career orientation.</p>
<p>In other words, K&D are not necessarily wrong, it is just that all work in an area like this must make assumptions about how well they control for entrance variables, and there is no way to check. MAYBE look at people who initially enrolled at P, found they could not afford it, then went to S. Then you have a sample who were matched both on where they were admitted, and where they decided to enroll. Of course the N would be small, and their subsequent careers might have been influenced by the need to enter the workforce early...</p>
<p>Has it ever occured to you maybe I want to go to school with brilliant people for the conversation, intense class discussions, and vibrant atnosphere and not to make a few more bucks down the line?</p>
<p>"intense class discussions".... Well, Northwestern's not the place for you... most people hate discussions here, and we're about as elite as they come.</p>
<p>it depends on profession. a princeton alum and a east podunk univ alum will make the same being a teacher. a clinical psychologist from yale and one from eastern idaho will make the same if they are practicing therapists (research is another story). when i go the doctor, i dont ask and i dont care where they went to college.</p>
<p>hey, i've had a couple good discussion sections so far my freshman year! lol.</p>
<p>
[quote]
afan writes: It is unlikely that the difference between Krueger and Dale and others is that that 25 point SAT bands contained schools of varying quality. If the differences within these narrow bands were important, then it is likely that the much larger differences between bands would have shown up quite clearly.
[/quote]
You make the same mistake Krueger does. You identify eliteness as average SAT score, and yet it is well known that elite schools look at a whole host of factors (recs, ECs, essays, interviews, etc) in admitting students. It should be no surprise that SAT score alone, then, is not a proxy for eliteness. See below for more on this.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Barron's data would show a college effect for the matched data, but this would be because the students were not really matched, they differed in the decisions they made about where to go to school.
[/quote]
Let me suggest you actually read Kruegers study at the link I gave because this part of your post shows you have not. There is no "Barron's data". Barrons is a list of which schools fall into categories of selectivity. It was used by Krueger as an alternative way of grouping schools into levels of selectivity, so the kids were just as matched as when he used SAT scores. Same researcher, same database, same matching. Krueger found that if he used Barron's list to categorize schools there WAS a significant correlation between what school was attended and income.</p>
<p>Well if your parents were smart enough to save up enough money or you are smart enough to get a lot of scholarships...its a moot point.</p>
<p>Discussions= Crazy schools like Chicago, Wesleyan, etc. When I think of schools like Penn and NU, I don't really think of discussions. Sorry :-)</p>