<p>Even that’s not always guaranteed as some many have graduated, but not get commissioned due to a sudden injury/medical condition or the given FSA’s parent service has an excess of military officers which caused them to “forgive” the military service obligation as it was the parent service who decided to effectively RIF the FSA graduate, not the graduate him/herself. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is one key issue which causes many LACs to have extremely low “graduate incomes” as a greater proportion of their graduates often go on for graduate/professional study. </p>
<p>The ones with grad degrees are often excluded from the “graduate incomes” stats.</p>
<p>coureur, Could the fedGov track income/profession (as reported tax returns) for student loan borrowers and pell grantees?<br>
Yes the schools would need to track (via self report) data for non-finAid grads. Given the size of the classes, a sampling would do.<br>
I suppose, as menlo pointed out, the schools feel no pressure to report results, as they can survive on perceived reputation alone.
cobart, that’s why the ug schools also report “mid career” earnings ( See Naval’s post with links) to control for grad degrees. </p>
<p>The only conclusion evident from 4 pages of posts is…
According CC senior members, Comparative Data which controls for SES is not available from the Ivies, flagships, top-tiers.
While mid-tier schools are invested in tracking data across a broad spectrum.</p>
<p>That all costs money to implement. Meanwhile, if you feel Elite School A isn’t worth it, it’s perfectly fine if you choose not to apply or send your kid there.</p>
<p>Momnedds2no - what’s the right metric? One year out? Five years out? 10, 20 years out? Do you include or exclude those who go to grad or profl school? What about outliers (the people who started Google pull up the averages) – include or exclude? what do you do with the person who joins the family business, or the person who could have been (high paying job x) but chose (lower paying job y) because of disability or family concerns or special needs children? Do you adjust for region of the country lived in?</p>
<p>Nope. I don’t think any college can accurately track that. </p>
<p>It’s just not reasonable to suggest (as does post #265) that since colleges know the GPA and SAT scores of their current students that they can accurately know the incomes of their alumni. These are not even remotely comparable situations.</p>
<p>There is a rigorous system in place to determine and report the SAT & GPA numbers of college applicants. And the numbers right are there in black and white for the school to see. In addition, the GPA and SAT scores are easily-defined and well-known criteria. Plus, the numbers of enrolled students in any given year is a much more manageable number - orders of magnitude smaller than the numbers of alumni. Moreover, the students, having sought to be admitted, have every motivation to ensure that the school gets a copy of their numbers.</p>
<p>For income data the opposite is true for each of these. There is no comprehensive system to collect and report this data. The schools do not have ready access to the patchwork of government and private databases that do exist, and if they did have access combining them into a single coherent database would be a nightmare. The very definition of “income” is complex, variable, and hard to know, with a lot of “it depends” caveats (e.g. see Form 1040 and all its supporting forms). The numbers of alumni are far greater than the numbers of current students. And the alumni themselves have no particular reason or motivation to inform the school of their incomes.</p>
<p>Heck, colleges have a tough time even keeping track of which of their alumni are even currently alive, much less how much money they are making.</p>
<p>Sue22, Use the FASA info for and have a catagory for non-FASA. It would be nice to compare for results based upon the school’s “involvement” v. SES. Did you look at naval’s links. Only a small percentage of pell eligible attend top schools. Makes one question the diversity claims as well…</p>
My post disputed your claim about costs, not your phone/OS comparison.</p>
<p>That said, I do not think comparing a selective college to iPhone vs Android/Windows is an apt comparison. I have degrees from Stanford, but have also taken classes at several other colleges with varying selectivity and cost – SUNYA, RPI, UCSD, and Wyoming. My experience was completely different at each school. For example, I found classes at the two least selective schools (SUNYA and Wyoming) to be far less challenging than the others and generally have less interested students. I realize that this would differ for many honors college programs. I found that the public colleges had more of a local focus in their classes (particularly Wyoming), such as UCSD EE classes emphasizing Qualcomm tech. I can see how different students would have preferred and fit better in any one of the schools I mentioned. However, Stanford was definitely the best fit for me. I also believe it had the most employment opportunities for my field. </p>
<p>Regarding the tangent on comparing income, this is not an original question. Many studies have compared how actual average vs predicted average income differs with college selectivity. For example, the study at <a href=“http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp0002.pdf[/url]”>http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp0002.pdf</a> compared how average income at various points in life differed with college selectivity group. In all cases, average income increased as college selectivity group increased. The author then compared average income among students with similar stats who attended colleges within different selectivity groups and concluded “controlling for aptitude eliminates the majority (between two-thirds and three-quarters), but not all, of the income differences between college rank groups.”</p>
<p>I am pretty sure that one can gather the info on alum giving rates and average amount for many universities, let it be Harvard or University of North Dakota. It is not unreasonable to assume that such info is not too bad a proxy for grad success, financially at least. </p>
<p>Anyone wants to bet who might be the “winners”?</p>
<p>^ Not so sure, PCHope. I give to my undergrad institution because they need it. I don’t give to my (more elite) private high school or Ivy graduate school because they have more money than Croesus.</p>
<p>More importantly, average alumni giving can be skewed by one or two mega donors. Plus I would imagine alumni giving rates at publicly-supported schools would naturally be lower than those at private institutions.</p>
<p>Slap my face. Dartmouth publishes results! <a href=“http://www.dartmouth.edu/~csrc/docs/09stats.pdf[/url]”>Center for Professional Development;
Although no SES info included, the report gives some darn good insight. Nice job dartmouth.<br>
Sources for employment cited (i.e on campus recuritment, internship, personal network)<br>
leading source of job placement…personal network.</p>
<p>Sue, the beauty of looking at average numbers is that, as long as the samples are large enough, you have a statistically significant assessment of each school in terms of its alum giving. Even though the mega donors may have skewed the averages, but isn’t it part of the story that some schools have mega donors while others do not?</p>
<p>This makes sense. The schools that have power in their brand names allow their reputations to do the heavy lifting for them, while the schools that are less widely known want to prove themselves. It’s just like Hertz vs. Avis. Remember the Avis motto–“we try harder”?</p>
Saying “it still stands” without any content does not make a convincing argument. Your post focused on paying extra for something unnecessary that may not pay off, then asked if it was like Apple vs PC, implying that Apple users are paying extra for an unnecessary luxury. </p>
<p>For most persons in the US, the cost of HYPSM is less than their state flagship or the vast majority of other 4-yr options. More than 20% of parents at Harvard parents have a low enough income to pay nothing under their excellent FA. Being less expensive for most persons in the US (and outside of the US for HYPM) helps increase selectivity, which is completely different from paying extra for Apple. Maybe you also meant it’s like Apple vs PC for some other reason not stated in your post such as differing levels of user satisfaction, user friendliness, limitations on what you can do with the system, external software compatibility, etc. I’d disagree with any of these, leading to my comment about not being an apt comparison.</p>
<p>PCHope - I’ve taken more than Stats 101 and I think it’s stupid to extrapolate from alumni giving rate anything about financial success of the grads. If anything, it may – may – be a proxy for loyalty and satisfaction. </p>
<p>If 90% of the alumni throw ten bucks a year at the school and one mega-donor donates $10 mil, how can you summarize that in a meaningful way?</p>
<p>“If 90% of the alumni throw ten bucks a year at the school and one mega-donor donates $10 mil, how can you summarize that in a meaningful way?”</p>
<p>It is still better than 10% of the alumni throw ten bucks a year at the school while no one gives anything more than 100k. We are compare relative givings between two groups of alumni, where the “differences” between skewness, kurtosis, etc are meaningful as long as the samples are sufficiently large.</p>
<p>Nah. It’s a proxy for how efficient the alumni development office is in tracking and hounding alums. And in this regard it helps to have a small number of alums to track and hound. H = 35.7%, Y = 36.9%, P = 62.4%, S = 35.6%, M = 36.8%, while among LACs A = 56.4%, W = 58.3%, Sw = 44.4%, Bowdoin = 52.3%, Middlebury = 53.7%.</p>