This is the point I’m making. There’s better and there’s better. It depends on the context we’re discussing. Happier with the fit is important. Does it translate to more career success? There’s no academic evidence (with the exception of first gen financially challenged students) to suggest so. That doesn’t mean students shouldn’t go where they think they’ll enjoy the experience the best.
2 Likes
Krueger used “earnings” as the measurable outcome- not intellectual or academic achievement, and not professional success as measured in any way other than $. As a scientist you realize that the study measured and controlled for one thing and one thing only.
One could argue that a personal injury lawyer is more “successful” than a Supreme Court justice–or even a lowly judge on the Federal Appeals bench because he or she out-earns the judge by a factor of god knows what. (likely huge). One could argue that the owner of the local Volvo dealership is more “successful” than the researcher who unlocked the code that made the Covid vaccine possible (fascinating story, especially since according to the NYTimes, this PhD never earned more than 65K in her lengthy scientific career.) Volvo dealership owner- megabucks. Bench scientist-- not so much.
But lots of people would disagree with you. Go back and read Kreuger, and then read ALL the literature on why the study is so limited and yet is cited so frequently to “prove” things that the study didn’t measure.
4 Likes
Most personal injury lawyers aren’t making much. Yet another outlier. Come on.
1 Like
This argument basically says that an admissions safety where one is near the top of the range of academic strength is a less suitable college. In other words, it validates the feelings of students who feel disappointed at only getting into their safeties, as well as suggesting that anything that can be a safety is undesirable and therefore not really a safety that the student would be pleased to attend.
4 Likes
What if he did not get admitted to HYP and had to enroll in a “lesser” college (whether a local one, or his state’s public flagship, or whatever)? HYP and other elite colleges get far more academically capable applicants than they can admit (even if they did not lower standards for “hook” applicants), so what you seem to be saying is that most of those applicants will have their talents “wasted” because they do not get admitted to elite colleges.
4 Likes
My D chose Alabama because she was accepted into a specialist liberal arts program where she would be surrounded by intellectual peers. She was also in the Honors College.
So I agree that being surrounded by like minded students is important, and one is more likely to get this in elite schools - but for those of us without the money (most) or those on low incomes who cannot overcome circumstances (difficult), or do not have enough support (quite common) - then there are other ways to get this kind of environment.
However, she and I also agree that having to work with other types of people is also essential to getting on in life. My D has recognized that there are many different kinds of smart, and that some of these other kinds are just as happy and successful. One of these people was the girl in D’s freshman marketing class who kept saying ‘I can’t school!’ and ‘We could add in a bunch of stuff’ when asked for contributions to projects. D gnashed her teeth and moaned at me. Girl is, however, a wonderful salesperson, was great in the final presentation (when properly prepped), and has launched into a career in recruitment.
2 Likes
Sure, but again, these things are squishy, subjective definitions of success. Let’s use an anecdotal metric that might help clarify, Fortune 500 CEOs. There are more from the Big 10 than from the Ivy League. The Ivy League accounts for just over 10% of all Fortune 500 CEOs. The numbers hold remarkably close for CFOs.
Certainly graduates from “elite” institutions can be and are successful. What I’m saying is that one has to attend such an institution to be successful.
I think there are a fair number of people on this site who think exactly this. Its why the concept of elite or bust is common here. And others who wouldn’t agree necessarily but who deep down thinknon-“elite” fine is for others but not their kid.
3 Likes
We can probably all agree that the primary reason for a student’s success in life is her-/himself. On the other hand, a college education does add value to different degrees for different students. The value added has multiple components. The brand name of an elite college degree adds some value, relatively constant for its students initially, but that value diminishes over time (in some cases it may persist longer than in others). The additional value due to the education itself varies greatly from student to student. That’s where the “fit” comes in. Some students can derive greater value from their education at certain colleges than at others. Some colleges do add more value to many, but certainly not all, of their students. It all depends.
2 Likes
Not sure there are three words with which so many on this site struggle more than those.
6 Likes
In the end, it’s all marketing and hype - and some do it better than others.
If Knox was able to communicate its value as well as a Harvard or Duke, Knox would then be able to transition into that stratosphere…because in theory, if you take math at Knox or Harvard, the education, the training should be the same. At some schools, it will be better because they will be teaching focused.
Everyone says not to use rankings - except the schools that are ranked and show them over all their marketing - like #6 public school (UF), etc.
Northeastern in the last 20 years would be an example as would W&L to a lesser degree. U Florida as well.
1 Like
The problem is that for the most part the schools don’t communicate that value, it’s inferred (inaccurately) through the USNWR rankings and their already existing selectivity. Those can, and have been manipulated, both illegally, but also legally. When selectivity was part of the USNWR methodology, WashU, Vanderbilt, Rice and others spammed LOTS of students to increase the applicant pool in order to reject most of them. Now, that cake is baked and it’s for the most part a self fulfilling prophecy.
That’s not it.
@blossom had it right. One of the main reasons to attend elite schools is so that students can be among their peers and learn at the rate that’s right for them. It’s not that all of the highly talented students nationwide attend the elite schools, but enough do that they can offer classes that move through material quickly in a way that less elite colleges cannot.
My son is on the far right tail in terms of math ability, and he has the awards and published research papers to prove it. One of the main reasons he chose to attend Harvard is because they offer math classes that challenges the strongest students out there. Harvard also has a similar class in physics for the really strong physics students, and likely other areas as well.
4 Likes
That’s not the premise. The premise is based on the fact that there are now more than ever far more qualified students than seats at elite institutions, and the kids who stand to lose the most in this zero sum game are disadvantaged ones who research shows get the biggest boost post-graduation with a degree from one of these institutions. By expanding enrollment–specifically by expanding online degree options and by opening satellite campuses–you give more kids a chance without diluting the quality of the enrolled students and thus the “status” of these elite schools. And the schools stand to get more revenue. It’s a win-win. Harvard, Princeton and Rice are just a few of the schools who see the wisdom in this model. Here’s more. Some say the most competitive colleges in admissions should increase in size
WUSTL does free apps as does Chicago…so yes, they are looking to ratchet down the acceptance rate. We also did not pay to apply to W&L this year.
Others have been caught gaming the system - OU the other year got flat out caught lying…for many many years. And their President was an ex-Senator. Temple lied about it’s MBA. Claremont McKenna inflated SAT scores - and they’re an A+ institution. CMC is elite - in part - because they tell you they are elite - and in part because they fabricated data to back it up.
I was told - not sure if true - Clemson has every grad give $1 as they cross the stage to show a high % of alums donating. Here’s what their former Institutional Researcher said in 2012: We have walked the fine line between illegal, unethical, and really interesting."
Back to everyone’s point - what do rankings even mean? Kids have no idea of what’s being calculated…they just know higher is perceived better. We keep saying that the brightest want to be in school with the brightest…I’m sure it’s true. On the other hand, the brightest in Harvard goes to Harvard and now he/she is just one of many and not the cream of the crop. But given how Honors Colleges have popped up (in many ways, another marketing gimmick), it does give credence to the theory of elite being with elite. The Honors Colleges are low cost elite substitutions.
In the end, it’s clear based on the application data this year - it was way way way up for the top schools but not overall. Yes, it’s related to test optional…but why didn’t kids apply to the lesser schools in droves? They just applied to the perceived best schools.
2 Likes
Ivy League schools have approx. 61k undergrads, as of 2020. The US undergrad population was 16.6 million in 2018.
I’m curious - what’s your threshold for “disproportionate”, if 12% representation from 0.37% of the population, a factor of over 30x, does not meet it?
(And yet somehow 62 Big Ten vs. 61 Ivy, with 10x the undergraduate population, proves the opposite?)
2 Likes
I’m pretty sure you aren’t saying this.
And who said one “has to” attend anywhere specific to be successful?
1 Like
My point is that if there have been 61,000 and Ivy grads and the Ivy League is the be all end all for success, all of the Fortune 500 CEOs should hail from the league. There have been PLENTY of them to occupy all 500 positions if it had been demonstrated that an Ivy degree provided the keys to the kingdom.
And, DOOOH! Yes, “does not have to attend” was what I was hoping to say. 
If you are referring to the Dale & Krueger study, what it found was that among kids who were applied to and accepted to similar colleges, there was not a statistically significant difference in average earnings between students who attended the more selective and less selective college. There was a statistically significant increase in earnings associated with being a high stat student, and there was a statistically significantly increase in earnings associated with applying to a highly selective college, but no benefit in earnings for attending.
However, there were some subgroups that were exceptions. In 1 of the 2 samples, kids whose parents did not attend college did appear to have a small benefit in earnings for attending the college, rather than just applying. In the other sample, there was no clear benefit regardless of parents education level. In both of the 2 samples, attending the highly selective colleges was associated with an increase in earnings among URMs. URMs appeared to have little benefit in earnings for applying to a highly selective college, but did have a benefit for attending. The authors speculated that the benefit associated with these subgroups related to making connections among students at the college, rather than the college being “elite.” There are numerous other possible explanations as well, or possible criticisms of the study.
It’s hardly strong evidence of “elite” colleges needing to expand online degree options or open satellite campuses. Under the D&K making connections with students theory, “disadvantaged” kids would probably see little benefit from online degree options, with fewer connections with students.
I agree that there are various criticisms of the D&K study and others studies that have repeated something similar. However, what evidence is there of the contrary? That is, what evidence is there that if a particular student is rejected from an Ivy-type college and instead attends a quality college that is a step down in selectivity, would have a worse outcome on average?
In the article linked in the OP, the author argues that the Chetty study found that 58% of Harvard students who were born in the bottom quintile income climbed to the top quintile income, so it is important that low income kids go to Harvard. That sounds impressive, until you compare to colleges that are a step down in selectivity from Harvard. An example is below, comparing Harvard to other Boston area private colleges. They all have a roughly similar percentage of low income students who become high income adults. Harvard doesn’t even beat out Tufts in this metric, in spite of being more selective and having higher achieving students on average.
Tufts – 62% of bottom income kids became top income adults
Harvard – 58% of bottom income kids became top income adults
Boston College – 56% of bottom income kids became top income adults
Boston U – 50% of bottom income kids became top income adults
I expect that it instead depends on the student for a variety of reasons. Some students would function best at Harvard and have the best post grad outcome. Others would at Tufts, Boston College their state flagship, or even their safety. There isn’t a simple rule.
1 Like
The higher a college’s test scores, the more likely those high test scores are to be a barrier that keeps students from applying. So it follows that when many colleges went test optional this year, the colleges with the largest expected application increase should be the ones with the highest test scores, not the ones with middling test scores that weren’t a barrier for most interested kids.
While high test score “elite” type colleges tend to be among the ones who had the largest increase upon going test optional this year, they are not the colleges with the largest number of applications. Instead the colleges, with the largest applications are publics in well populated areas, NYU, and similar. An example showing colleges with the largest number of applications in the most recent IPEDS year are below. I wouldn’t call most of these “lesser schools”, but the point is kids don’t just apply to “elite” type colleges in droves. I expect the list is similar this year. UCB, NYU, and other higher test score colleges probably moved up a few spots, but no “elite” privates would be among the most applied to colleges.
Colleges with Most Applications (2019)
- UCLA
- UCSD
- Penn State
- UCI
- UCSB
- UCB
- NYU
- UCD
- CSULB
- SDSU