<p>take it from a guy on wall street: if I were to earn 125k 10 years out of college, I’d be kicking myself for not getting that MBA or I’d be in tears. Noone in finance earns 125k 10 years out. It’s usually the high fliers who succeed without a secondary degree and this survey clearly does not capture these people (with medians of 125k). 125k is what a good first year investment banking analyst makes at a top 10 bank after bonus straight out of college.</p>
<p>Here’s (another) fundamental reason why this survey is flawed:</p>
<p>If you wanted to make money out of college and see some ROI you’d probably go into med/law/finance/consulting. Almost all of which would lead you to a masters or higher at some point. So the survey looks at median salaries of those college grads probably not interested in making money in the first place and basically tells you absolutely nothing about a college’s ability to give you financial success - this study is thus worthless.</p>
<p>Even something as narrow as a college’s acceptances rates into top law schools would be more valuable.</p>
<p>I personally think that there are a lot of USC grads posing as UCLA’s. When WSJ published the the survey about five years ago (?) (I’m not sure how long Payscale’s been in existence) - and WSJ hasn’t done it since because I’m sure it sees the inherent flaws, UCLA’s median was around $101K. Now it’s ~ $91K a drop of median of ~ $10K. Others including Cal’s have remained stable.</p>
<p>I can see the economic times having an obvious effect, but I’m wondering how the site would incorporate the under- and unemployed into these medians, unless many of these were active job seekers, with the site reporting essentially zero income for this set. But Payscale isn’t monster.com, matching employer and employee, so why would an unemployed person want to fill out its survey? </p>
<p>Another problem I see as Barrons noted, is its lack of a scientific sample size of the grads with just baccalaureate degrees. Do these surveys reflect the correct proportion of professions for each school’s grads; are these correct snap-shots of graduates for each school wrt professions?</p>
<p>By soliciting responses from persons taking the surveys, Payscale cannot possibly have the right mix. Unless Payscale were to actively seek info from each school wrt its grads instead of inactively awaiting hits to its site - and no school would ever release info on its grads - then this survey is truly bird-cage liner.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re missing the point sentiment.</p>
<p>Any graduate degree, masters, doctorate will disqualify anyone from the Payscale survey. </p>
<p>
[quote]
</p>
<p>I think what Dunn was alluding to wrt the 18%-comment was that this was the % from UCLA undergrad who attend one of the three professional schools initially from graduation, probably mainly law - and yes most go elsewhere. There would be more later on, esp for MBA’s and MD’s because most MBA programs require work/life experience, and many defer enrollment, eg, attending grad life sciences, to become more attractive to med schools.</p>
<p>Of the UC schools, UCLA produces > JD’s than Cal, >>>>> than the other UC’s. There are indications of UCLA producing > MD’s than Cal, and >>> the other UC’s. MBA’s would be hard to measure.</p>
<p>This would probably -> UCLA’s % being around ~ 30% for the three, say, five years down the road. This wouldn’t include PHD’s, masters in non professions. So with these in mind, I wouldn’t disagree with Ivies producing 40% or so in the professions. I think it would be higher than Dunn’s revised 25%, but certianly not be near 70% as the other poster estimated.</p>
<p>The Payscale survey would show things on a macro scale correctly, eg, the differences in pay wrt geography. Bay Area has > 10% greater salary than rest of CA for like professions.</p>
<p>Things on a micro scale not so, eg, scientific sample sizes, etc.</p>
<p>And lest you question my remark, sentiment, RML, of UCLA producing at least competitive amounts of MDs with Cal, just remember that UCLA has the advantage of having a med school on campus, where the undergrads can rub elbows with med students and take classes in the same buildings, perhaps even being ta’ed by med students.</p>
<p>That’s why for premed, I believe UCLA is better than Cal.</p>
<p>Toasteater, it’s rather a narrow unsophisticated view of the world that only losers don’t pursue MD/JD/MBA. You might not be aware but there are actually other careers beyond doctor, lawyer, and business person. And IvyPBear, your housewife comment is equally ignorant. I know plenty of elite school undergrads / grads who were earning six figures who decided to SAH with children.</p>
<p>“Why are you grouping MBAs with JDs and MDs? You’re comparing a Master’s degree to Doctoral degrees. It is much more difficult to earn the latter two than the former. Worse than that, a Master’s in Business Administration is literally the least prestigious Master’s possible. ITT Tech offers MBAs.”</p>
<p>Yes, there are a lot of places hand out useless pieces of paper that claim that you have a MBA, but not all MBAs are made equal. It’s a terminal degree. Holders of MBAs at top schools (Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Tuck, Booth, etc.) have the highest starting compensation (yes, higher than ones with degrees from Yale Law and Harvard Med).</p>
<p>“I know plenty of elite school undergrads / grads who were earning six figures who decided to SAH with children.”</p>
<p>Pizzagirl - That’s perfectly consistent with what I wrote. What I’m said was that most of the people surveyed from top schools weren’t high achievers who made managing director without a MBA. Most of the people surveyed from top schools probably were people not interested in getting rich (ones who decided to enjoy life by working less, housewives who decided to spend more time with kids instead of regretting that they didn’t once they are 45 and rich but their kids are off to college, etc.).</p>
<p>Uh, no, not really. The KD study controlled for aptitude as measured by standardized test scores, which is only one dimension of aptitude, and, frankly, a relatively minor one. No-one would dispute that ‘aptitude’ is a far broader characteristic than simply test scores. Every year, Harvard and some other top schools could admit an entire class of students with perfect 2400 test scores. But they don’t. We can debate whether the admissions criterion used by the top schools are appropriate or effective, but there is no dispute that you need far more than merely a high test score to be admitted to those schools. </p>
<p>Furthermore, the authors unfortunately introduce yet another ‘aptitude’ variable by comparing those students who were admitted to HYPSM and matriculated vs. those students who were also admitted yet chose to go elsewhere. That latter choice is itself correlated to (unobservable) features of aptitude or other opportunities. Perhaps those students are unusually self-confident, in that they feel they can succeed without the benefit of a HYPSM education. Perhaps those students are turning down HYPSM for a special program at a lower-tier school such as a BS/MD program or other opportunity available only at that school. {For example, I know one guy who turned down an Ivy for an academically lower-ranked state school that also happens to be one of the most famous football schools in the country, with him being a top football recruit who wanted to take his best shot at the NFL. Even if he doesn’t make it to the pros, he nevertheless enjoyed a 4-year full athletic scholarship and the experience of playing for a football powerhouse, including several prominent bowl games.} The upshot is that those students who are admitted to HYPSM and then deliberately choose to go elsewhere are clearly not comparable to those who are admitted and actually go. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, the only feasible way to truly ‘control’ for the unobserved aptitude variables, short of a randomized experiment, is probably through a regression discontinuity: compare those HYPSM students who were barely admitted vs. those students who barely missed admission. For example, you could compare those students just before and just after the wait-list cutoff: if Harvard matriculated 50 students from the waitlist, then students 41-50 from that waitlist are highly comparable to students 51-60 in terms of aptitude. Then you could truly measure the discontinuous treatment effect of going to Harvard. Good luck trying to obtain that data, however.</p>
When WSJ published the the survey about five years ago (?) (I’m not sure how long Payscale’s been in existence) - and WSJ hasn’t done it since because I’m sure it sees the inherent flaws, UCLA’s median was around $101K. Now it’s ~ $91K a drop of median of ~ $10K. Others including Cal’s have remained stable.</p>