<p>RamRay,</p>
<p>Thank you for your clarification. I agree with you that outcomes are important, especially with the current (inflated) cost of education and the way that universities market degrees as stepping stones to a better paying career. However, I also believe that an education is valuable beyond that of career outcomes; when you learn a new way of thinking about the world, you carry that with you wherever you go. For example, as an undergrad, I majored in mathematics and economics; these majors did not prepare me for a specific profession (e.g. accounting, medicine, law, etc.), but they did teach me an entirely different way of thinking about and understanding the world around me. My undergraduate education has improved my life in a way beyond simple career outcomes. </p>
<p>Also, I agree with you that SOMETIMES a more expensive private education is more worthwhile than a less expensive public education. In fact, my undergraduate degree is from a highly ranked private university, and I also spent two years studying at a highly ranked public, research–focused, university – the difference, for me, was night and day. That said, there are many ways to keep education costs in check without resorting to an exclusively public education system. Right now, it seems that higher–education inflation in the USA (driven in part by the rise of student debt financing, a government push for education, and a difficult job market – all of which have increased demand) is out of touch with the worldwide market for education. For example, Europeans have access to universities that provide, arguably, an education comparable to any top university in the USA, and at a fraction of the cost (including: Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, ETH, Sorbonne, and INSEAD, to name a few). </p>
<p>I am NOT saying that: cheaper (always) == better. Rather, I am saying that it really depends on a person’s individual goals and circumstances. If someone’s goal is to get a job in IB or M/B/B consulting, then pedigree/prestige and alumni network matter a lot – no argument here. But, if someone’s goal is to pursue, for example, a career in accounting or medicine, then reputation/rank/prestige matters far less (if at all). Also, as you move farther into your career, your recent accomplishments will often matter far more than the name on your degree. </p>
<p>For many (most) people, money is a “scarce” resource; so, when comparing two programs that have significantly different costs and yet similar career/income outcomes, the question becomes: “what am I getting for that extra cost, and how does that compare with my alternative ways of using that cost savings?”. Also, if someone is borrowing to pay for college, the total cost may end up being much higher than the advertised tuition&fees. Even degree programs in areas such as medicine and accounting (where the expected career/income outcome is fairly program rank/reputation independent) have huge variance in tuition costs and cost of attendance. </p>
<p>My problem with using the “Paris School of Mines” study as a decision making heuristic is that it is essentially looking at data from the extreme tail end of a population distribution. A much better indicator would be a study that looks at the median, mean, 95% C.I., or some other measure of central tendency. Students should make educational decisions based on good data, and on a fundamental sense of their reasons/motivations for pursuing a degree. The problem with many of these “ranking” studies (many of which lack the “rigor” to be taken seriously by an academic research journal) is that they are reductionist: when you look at the nitty, gritty details of the criteria that went into the study, much of it has little to do with what truly matters to most students considering the universities being ranked.</p>