Where you go to college matters!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Absolute nonsense. I hire many graduates every year. The idea that they are divided into some kind of caste system based on where they went to college is simply ludicrous. Of course we have a vague ranking of the different universities, but your personality, experience, interests, and individual accomplishments count for more. And of course, once you are in the door no one gives a crap where you went to university.

If you worked for a prestigious investment bank, law firm or consulting firm, you’d understand this a little better. Yes, many smaller companies who aren’t going to attract the best anyway won’t focus on top schools. Why bother when those graduates don’t want to work for you anyway? Kids from Princeton aren’t typically working along side kids from no name schools.

McKinsey isn’t recruiting at Penn State or Syracuse. Those schools are fine in many ways but if you want every door open, school prestige matters.

[Anonymous]

A Syracuse Law grad now holds the most powerful office in the world.

[Anonymous]

Yes - where you go to college matters. But what matters much more is your humor, ability to get get along with others, looks, fitness level, pedigree (where your grew up anbd who your parents are) and style. Show me an introverted, overweight genius from Harvard that is selected over the gregarious lacrosse player from Michigan or Penn State and you will prove me wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolute nonsense. I hire many graduates every year. The idea that they are divided into some kind of caste system based on where they went to college is simply ludicrous. Of course we have a vague ranking of the different universities, but your personality, experience, interests, and individual accomplishments count for more. And of course, once you are in the door no one gives a crap where you went to university.

If you worked for a prestigious investment bank, law firm or consulting firm, you’d understand this a little better. Yes, many smaller companies who aren’t going to attract the best anyway won’t focus on top schools. Why bother when those graduates don’t want to work for you anyway? Kids from Princeton aren’t typically working along side kids from no name schools.

McKinsey isn’t recruiting at Penn State or Syracuse. Those schools are fine in many ways but if you want every door open, school prestige matters.

A simple search on LinkedIn proves you wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A Syracuse Law grad now holds the most powerful office in the world.

He’s the puppet of the HLS grad who is really running the show.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolute nonsense. I hire many graduates every year. The idea that they are divided into some kind of caste system based on where they went to college is simply ludicrous. Of course we have a vague ranking of the different universities, but your personality, experience, interests, and individual accomplishments count for more. And of course, once you are in the door no one gives a crap where you went to university.

If you worked for a prestigious investment bank, law firm or consulting firm, you’d understand this a little better. Yes, many smaller companies who aren’t going to attract the best anyway won’t focus on top schools. Why bother when those graduates don’t want to work for you anyway? Kids from Princeton aren’t typically working along side kids from no name schools.

McKinsey isn’t recruiting at Penn State or Syracuse. Those schools are fine in many ways but if you want every door open, school prestige matters.

A simple search on LinkedIn proves you wrong.

I’m not sure why you keep insisting on something you know nothing about. Those of us who have worked for these employers know where they recruit and which are “priority” schools. It’s possible a talented individual who attended JMU is during their career is eventually hired by McKinsey but they are not showing up to recruit like they are at Princeton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolute nonsense. I hire many graduates every year. The idea that they are divided into some kind of caste system based on where they went to college is simply ludicrous. Of course we have a vague ranking of the different universities, but your personality, experience, interests, and individual accomplishments count for more. And of course, once you are in the door no one gives a crap where you went to university.

If you worked for a prestigious investment bank, law firm or consulting firm, you’d understand this a little better. Yes, many smaller companies who aren’t going to attract the best anyway won’t focus on top schools. Why bother when those graduates don’t want to work for you anyway? Kids from Princeton aren’t typically working along side kids from no name schools.

McKinsey isn’t recruiting at Penn State or Syracuse. Those schools are fine in many ways but if you want every door open, school prestige matters.

A simple search on LinkedIn proves you wrong.

I’m not sure why you keep insisting on something you know nothing about. Those of us who have worked for these employers know where they recruit and which are “priority” schools. It’s possible a talented individual who attended JMU is during their career is eventually hired by McKinsey but they are not showing up to recruit like they are at Princeton.

Recruiting only at elite colleges is not the same as hiring only from those colleges. It's just more efficient to look in the places that have a high concentration of really smart people. It's not the prestige of the school that matters, it's that those schools have tons of very capable students. Would they really turn down the opportunity to interview Google co-founder Sergei Brin (Maryland) or NVIDIA co-founder Jensen Huang (Oregon State) if they sent an inquiry or had professors with connections to McKinsey saying they need to look at this person?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolute nonsense. I hire many graduates every year. The idea that they are divided into some kind of caste system based on where they went to college is simply ludicrous. Of course we have a vague ranking of the different universities, but your personality, experience, interests, and individual accomplishments count for more. And of course, once you are in the door no one gives a crap where you went to university.

If you worked for a prestigious investment bank, law firm or consulting firm, you’d understand this a little better. Yes, many smaller companies who aren’t going to attract the best anyway won’t focus on top schools. Why bother when those graduates don’t want to work for you anyway? Kids from Princeton aren’t typically working along side kids from no name schools.

McKinsey isn’t recruiting at Penn State or Syracuse. Those schools are fine in many ways but if you want every door open, school prestige matters.

A simple search on LinkedIn proves you wrong.

I’m not sure why you keep insisting on something you know nothing about. Those of us who have worked for these employers know where they recruit and which are “priority” schools. It’s possible a talented individual who attended JMU is during their career is eventually hired by McKinsey but they are not showing up to recruit like they are at Princeton.

Recruiting only at elite colleges is not the same as hiring only from those colleges. It's just more efficient to look in the places that have a high concentration of really smart people. It's not the prestige of the school that matters, it's that those schools have tons of very capable students. Would they really turn down the opportunity to interview Google co-founder Sergei Brin (Maryland) or NVIDIA co-founder Jensen Huang (Oregon State) if they sent an inquiry or had professors with connections to McKinsey saying they need to look at this person?

Oh, and I just did that LinkedIn search. Between Penn State and Syracuse, McKinsey has 200 employees. They may not recruit at those schools, but they're certainly hiring from them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Opportunities are very everywhere for college students regardless of where you attend. My DS was a CS major at a third tier university but he always went to technology conferences and established professional network connections there. He got rejected so many times that he lost count but there is a FinTech startup that took a chance on him and hired him after he graduated in 2014. The company was acquired by a bigger FinTech player in 2018 and my DS got his options fully vested worth 25M at the age of twenty six. It is what you make of it.

On the one hand I love hearing these stories...but on the other hand you are saying that your kid actually had a very hard time getting a job coming out of a 3rd tier college and got very lucky (luck is absolutely a part of life) that the "one" company that was willing to hire him also had a successful exit.

You do realize that your same kid coming out of say Stanford would have had 100 start-ups vying for his services (plus countless large tech, VC firms, etc.).

Stanford grads never get rejected? What a nice claim that must be to make in visits to high schools!

Not my fault if you can't understand the point.

Would just appreciate if folks would stop posting links to things like the Fortune 500 CEOs or giving a unicorn story (that for the most part says going to a 3rd Tier college was actually not great), both of which actually support (not refute) the OP's statement.

Wish someone would post that my kid attended a school ranked #300 and there were multiple Fortune 500 companies recruiting on-campus and 99% of the grads are employed in high-paying/satisfying careers. That's what we want to see as examples.

How does the list of CEOs support OP's statement? Because top colleges are overrepresented based on their population vs. that of other colleges? Those colleges are more highly represented because their students are almost all brilliant, super ambitious, hard-working, etc., and many are already well-connected before they even get to college (through their parents). It's not because those students attended elite colleges that they're successful, it's because they continue to be in college and adulthood what they already were in high school.

Regardless of why it supports OP's statement...it still supports it. PP gave the link to Fortune 500 CEOs saying "look the University of Iowa has as many as Yale". Somebody clicking the link would then naturally assume that the concentration of CEOs would not be massively clustered in the top schools...but in fact they would see the opposite.

If people make false assumptions, that's not the same as support for the original statement.

Oh, and it's not 'massively clustered there'. It leans that way.

40% come from 13 schools…out of 3,000 colleges. That seems massively clustered to me.

What?!! Where the heck are you pulling that falsehood from?

From the chart that PP posted the link. Supposedly has Fortune 500 CEOs by school. Just added up the numbers.

Chart was supposed to show (I gather) that it doesn’t matter where you go to school to become a Fortune 500 CEO…but data would show otherwise.

a) Those students achieved their success because of who they were before they even entered college, not because of the college they attended. This has been shown through published research and through many other sources of data.

b) You're referring to the chart that show the numbers for combined undergrad/grad school degrees, so the elite colleges have had TWO chances to get first crack at the most capable, ambitious students. Of course they have higher numbers.

You are shooting the messenger. I was hoping the chart would support the opposite...but it didn't. That's all.

That said your a) above is not really true. There is published research that both support and refute your assertion (the caveat being that even Dale & Krueger says you have to attend a decent college...their research was on a kid accepted to Yale that attended Penn State...Penn State is still a top 100 college). There was more recent research that said that kids admitted off the waitlist to elite schools do better than the kids that did not get off the + grads than would be expectewaitlist.

As you might imagine, it is hard to prove definitively that Kid A would have done equally well regardless of their college because it is not like you can follow a parallel universe for that kid.

You have misunderstood the more recent research, assuming you're referring to Chetty's study at Harvard. Chetty states that their study AGREES with Dale and Krueger that the average incomes for the two groups were the same, but that more elite college grads were in the top 1%. So if they average the same but there are more elite grads in the top 1%, then there are more non-elite grads somewhere very close behind that. This is most likely attributable to Ivy+ students being the types who value careers with obscene salaries, not to anything that happened at the college. If the study is correct and it matters to you that you make $400k+ vs. say $350k, then MAYBE it makes a difference where you go.

Also, Chetty's study compared those who were accepted at Ivy+ colleges with those who were not (apples vs. oranges), while Dale and Kruger studied those who were accepted and chose to attend Ivy+ vs. those who were accepted and chose to go elsewhere (apples vs. apples). This is an important difference!

And when Chetty looks at who works at elite firms, they define elite as one that hires more Ivy+ grads than would be expected, then makes a big deal out of more Ivy+ grads being hired. This seems bizarre to me.

Oh, and (so far anyway) Dale and Kruger's study has been peer-reviewed and found worthy of publication twice, while (so far as I know) Chetty has not yet been published.

Unless I am missing something, Dale & Kruger only looks at the kid who was accepted to Yale but chose Penn State...however, it does not analyze the outcomes of the average kid at Penn State vs. the average kid at Yale (which seems more applicable to the general population)...or does it?

ALL of the kids in the study were accepted at an elite college. Some chose to attend it, others chose less selective colleges. They looked at average salaries of each group 10 years out of college and 20 years out of college. They were found to be equal, except for slight differences for first-gen students, blacks and Latinos (not enough to worry about, IMHO).

It's a brilliant way to understand as well as we can something that is impossible to study in real life. They're all equally capable, desirable students, but just had different ideas about what was a good match for them in a college.

However, it is misleading as to how the average student at each school performs. 99% of kids at State U did not also apply and get accepted to Harvard or wherever...or even considered applying to a school such as Harvard. To only look at the most driven, exceptional kids doesn't really tell you how the average kid performs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolute nonsense. I hire many graduates every year. The idea that they are divided into some kind of caste system based on where they went to college is simply ludicrous. Of course we have a vague ranking of the different universities, but your personality, experience, interests, and individual accomplishments count for more. And of course, once you are in the door no one gives a crap where you went to university.

If you worked for a prestigious investment bank, law firm or consulting firm, you’d understand this a little better. Yes, many smaller companies who aren’t going to attract the best anyway won’t focus on top schools. Why bother when those graduates don’t want to work for you anyway? Kids from Princeton aren’t typically working along side kids from no name schools.

McKinsey isn’t recruiting at Penn State or Syracuse. Those schools are fine in many ways but if you want every door open, school prestige matters.

A simple search on LinkedIn proves you wrong.

I’m not sure why you keep insisting on something you know nothing about. Those of us who have worked for these employers know where they recruit and which are “priority” schools. It’s possible a talented individual who attended JMU is during their career is eventually hired by McKinsey but they are not showing up to recruit like they are at Princeton.

Recruiting only at elite colleges is not the same as hiring only from those colleges. It's just more efficient to look in the places that have a high concentration of really smart people. It's not the prestige of the school that matters, it's that those schools have tons of very capable students. Would they really turn down the opportunity to interview Google co-founder Sergei Brin (Maryland) or NVIDIA co-founder Jensen Huang (Oregon State) if they sent an inquiry or had professors with connections to McKinsey saying they need to look at this person?

Oh, and I just did that LinkedIn search. Between Penn State and Syracuse, McKinsey has 200 employees. They may not recruit at those schools, but they're certainly hiring from them.

What is the percentage of folks at Princeton or Yale getting hired by these firms? Getting an interview does not mean you get an offer. By the same token, a former lacrosse player from Virginia Tech would have a higher probability to get hired by these firms than someone from Princeton or Yale because they are ex-D1 athletes, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolute nonsense. I hire many graduates every year. The idea that they are divided into some kind of caste system based on where they went to college is simply ludicrous. Of course we have a vague ranking of the different universities, but your personality, experience, interests, and individual accomplishments count for more. And of course, once you are in the door no one gives a crap where you went to university.

If you worked for a prestigious investment bank, law firm or consulting firm, you’d understand this a little better. Yes, many smaller companies who aren’t going to attract the best anyway won’t focus on top schools. Why bother when those graduates don’t want to work for you anyway? Kids from Princeton aren’t typically working along side kids from no name schools.

McKinsey isn’t recruiting at Penn State or Syracuse. Those schools are fine in many ways but if you want every door open, school prestige matters.

A simple search on LinkedIn proves you wrong.

I’m not sure why you keep insisting on something you know nothing about. Those of us who have worked for these employers know where they recruit and which are “priority” schools. It’s possible a talented individual who attended JMU is during their career is eventually hired by McKinsey but they are not showing up to recruit like they are at Princeton.

Recruiting only at elite colleges is not the same as hiring only from those colleges. It's just more efficient to look in the places that have a high concentration of really smart people. It's not the prestige of the school that matters, it's that those schools have tons of very capable students. Would they really turn down the opportunity to interview Google co-founder Sergei Brin (Maryland) or NVIDIA co-founder Jensen Huang (Oregon State) if they sent an inquiry or had professors with connections to McKinsey saying they need to look at this person?

Oh, and I just did that LinkedIn search. Between Penn State and Syracuse, McKinsey has 200 employees. They may not recruit at those schools, but they're certainly hiring from them.

I am not trying to wade into this battle, but McKinsey has over 10,000 employees...many of which are not client-facing. Funny enough, I know someone who graduated from Syracuse that works at McKinsey but not as a consultant. This person helps with their global media strategies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolute nonsense. I hire many graduates every year. The idea that they are divided into some kind of caste system based on where they went to college is simply ludicrous. Of course we have a vague ranking of the different universities, but your personality, experience, interests, and individual accomplishments count for more. And of course, once you are in the door no one gives a crap where you went to university.

Exactly. The position means everything, and for McKinsey you need to be a client-facing consultant to have the real McKinsey experience and pedigree. McKinsey mainly hires from very few schools for undergrad: 7 ivies (not much Cornell), Stanford, MIT, Duke, and Northwestern. Certain state schools also have solid placement (mainly the top 5 state schools) but it’s very competitive at those schools since they have more students on campus looking for those positions.

If you worked for a prestigious investment bank, law firm or consulting firm, you’d understand this a little better. Yes, many smaller companies who aren’t going to attract the best anyway won’t focus on top schools. Why bother when those graduates don’t want to work for you anyway? Kids from Princeton aren’t typically working along side kids from no name schools.

McKinsey isn’t recruiting at Penn State or Syracuse. Those schools are fine in many ways but if you want every door open, school prestige matters.

A simple search on LinkedIn proves you wrong.

I’m not sure why you keep insisting on something you know nothing about. Those of us who have worked for these employers know where they recruit and which are “priority” schools. It’s possible a talented individual who attended JMU is during their career is eventually hired by McKinsey but they are not showing up to recruit like they are at Princeton.

Recruiting only at elite colleges is not the same as hiring only from those colleges. It's just more efficient to look in the places that have a high concentration of really smart people. It's not the prestige of the school that matters, it's that those schools have tons of very capable students. Would they really turn down the opportunity to interview Google co-founder Sergei Brin (Maryland) or NVIDIA co-founder Jensen Huang (Oregon State) if they sent an inquiry or had professors with connections to McKinsey saying they need to look at this person?

Oh, and I just did that LinkedIn search. Between Penn State and Syracuse, McKinsey has 200 employees. They may not recruit at those schools, but they're certainly hiring from them.

I am not trying to wade into this battle, but McKinsey has over 10,000 employees...many of which are not client-facing. Funny enough, I know someone who graduated from Syracuse that works at McKinsey but not as a consultant. This person helps with their global media strategies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolute nonsense. I hire many graduates every year. The idea that they are divided into some kind of caste system based on where they went to college is simply ludicrous. Of course we have a vague ranking of the different universities, but your personality, experience, interests, and individual accomplishments count for more. And of course, once you are in the door no one gives a crap where you went to university.

If you worked for a prestigious investment bank, law firm or consulting firm, you’d understand this a little better. Yes, many smaller companies who aren’t going to attract the best anyway won’t focus on top schools. Why bother when those graduates don’t want to work for you anyway? Kids from Princeton aren’t typically working along side kids from no name schools.

McKinsey isn’t recruiting at Penn State or Syracuse. Those schools are fine in many ways but if you want every door open, school prestige matters.

A simple search on LinkedIn proves you wrong.

I’m not sure why you keep insisting on something you know nothing about. Those of us who have worked for these employers know where they recruit and which are “priority” schools. It’s possible a talented individual who attended JMU is during their career is eventually hired by McKinsey but they are not showing up to recruit like they are at Princeton.

Recruiting only at elite colleges is not the same as hiring only from those colleges. It's just more efficient to look in the places that have a high concentration of really smart people. It's not the prestige of the school that matters, it's that those schools have tons of very capable students. Would they really turn down the opportunity to interview Google co-founder Sergei Brin (Maryland) or NVIDIA co-founder Jensen Huang (Oregon State) if they sent an inquiry or had professors with connections to McKinsey saying they need to look at this person?

Oh, and I just did that LinkedIn search. Between Penn State and Syracuse, McKinsey has 200 employees. They may not recruit at those schools, but they're certainly hiring from them.

I am not trying to wade into this battle, but McKinsey has over 10,000 employees...many of which are not client-facing. Funny enough, I know someone who graduated from Syracuse that works at McKinsey but not as a consultant. This person helps with their global media strategies.

Just to clarify...McKinsey's global media strategy, not a client-facing group that may work with global media companies. It is essentially a PR role.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Opportunities are very everywhere for college students regardless of where you attend. My DS was a CS major at a third tier university but he always went to technology conferences and established professional network connections there. He got rejected so many times that he lost count but there is a FinTech startup that took a chance on him and hired him after he graduated in 2014. The company was acquired by a bigger FinTech player in 2018 and my DS got his options fully vested worth 25M at the age of twenty six. It is what you make of it.

On the one hand I love hearing these stories...but on the other hand you are saying that your kid actually had a very hard time getting a job coming out of a 3rd tier college and got very lucky (luck is absolutely a part of life) that the "one" company that was willing to hire him also had a successful exit.

You do realize that your same kid coming out of say Stanford would have had 100 start-ups vying for his services (plus countless large tech, VC firms, etc.).

Stanford grads never get rejected? What a nice claim that must be to make in visits to high schools!

Not my fault if you can't understand the point.

Would just appreciate if folks would stop posting links to things like the Fortune 500 CEOs or giving a unicorn story (that for the most part says going to a 3rd Tier college was actually not great), both of which actually support (not refute) the OP's statement.

Wish someone would post that my kid attended a school ranked #300 and there were multiple Fortune 500 companies recruiting on-campus and 99% of the grads are employed in high-paying/satisfying careers. That's what we want to see as examples.

How does the list of CEOs support OP's statement? Because top colleges are overrepresented based on their population vs. that of other colleges? Those colleges are more highly represented because their students are almost all brilliant, super ambitious, hard-working, etc., and many are already well-connected before they even get to college (through their parents). It's not because those students attended elite colleges that they're successful, it's because they continue to be in college and adulthood what they already were in high school.

Regardless of why it supports OP's statement...it still supports it. PP gave the link to Fortune 500 CEOs saying "look the University of Iowa has as many as Yale". Somebody clicking the link would then naturally assume that the concentration of CEOs would not be massively clustered in the top schools...but in fact they would see the opposite.

If people make false assumptions, that's not the same as support for the original statement.

Oh, and it's not 'massively clustered there'. It leans that way.

40% come from 13 schools…out of 3,000 colleges. That seems massively clustered to me.

What?!! Where the heck are you pulling that falsehood from?

From the chart that PP posted the link. Supposedly has Fortune 500 CEOs by school. Just added up the numbers.

Chart was supposed to show (I gather) that it doesn’t matter where you go to school to become a Fortune 500 CEO…but data would show otherwise.

a) Those students achieved their success because of who they were before they even entered college, not because of the college they attended. This has been shown through published research and through many other sources of data.

b) You're referring to the chart that show the numbers for combined undergrad/grad school degrees, so the elite colleges have had TWO chances to get first crack at the most capable, ambitious students. Of course they have higher numbers.

You are shooting the messenger. I was hoping the chart would support the opposite...but it didn't. That's all.

That said your a) above is not really true. There is published research that both support and refute your assertion (the caveat being that even Dale & Krueger says you have to attend a decent college...their research was on a kid accepted to Yale that attended Penn State...Penn State is still a top 100 college). There was more recent research that said that kids admitted off the waitlist to elite schools do better than the kids that did not get off the + grads than would be expectewaitlist.

As you might imagine, it is hard to prove definitively that Kid A would have done equally well regardless of their college because it is not like you can follow a parallel universe for that kid.

You have misunderstood the more recent research, assuming you're referring to Chetty's study at Harvard. Chetty states that their study AGREES with Dale and Krueger that the average incomes for the two groups were the same, but that more elite college grads were in the top 1%. So if they average the same but there are more elite grads in the top 1%, then there are more non-elite grads somewhere very close behind that. This is most likely attributable to Ivy+ students being the types who value careers with obscene salaries, not to anything that happened at the college. If the study is correct and it matters to you that you make $400k+ vs. say $350k, then MAYBE it makes a difference where you go.

Also, Chetty's study compared those who were accepted at Ivy+ colleges with those who were not (apples vs. oranges), while Dale and Kruger studied those who were accepted and chose to attend Ivy+ vs. those who were accepted and chose to go elsewhere (apples vs. apples). This is an important difference!

And when Chetty looks at who works at elite firms, they define elite as one that hires more Ivy+ grads than would be expected, then makes a big deal out of more Ivy+ grads being hired. This seems bizarre to me.

Oh, and (so far anyway) Dale and Kruger's study has been peer-reviewed and found worthy of publication twice, while (so far as I know) Chetty has not yet been published.

Unless I am missing something, Dale & Kruger only looks at the kid who was accepted to Yale but chose Penn State...however, it does not analyze the outcomes of the average kid at Penn State vs. the average kid at Yale (which seems more applicable to the general population)...or does it?

ALL of the kids in the study were accepted at an elite college. Some chose to attend it, others chose less selective colleges. They looked at average salaries of each group 10 years out of college and 20 years out of college. They were found to be equal, except for slight differences for first-gen students, blacks and Latinos (not enough to worry about, IMHO).

It's a brilliant way to understand as well as we can something that is impossible to study in real life. They're all equally capable, desirable students, but just had different ideas about what was a good match for them in a college.

However, it is misleading as to how the average student at each school performs. 99% of kids at State U did not also apply and get accepted to Harvard or wherever...or even considered applying to a school such as Harvard. To only look at the most driven, exceptional kids doesn't really tell you how the average kid performs.

Yes, of course. I wouldn't dream of saying that the average student at State U is going to have the same outcomes as the average student at Elite U. But students of equal ability are going to have the same outcomes regardless of which they choose. This is what Dale and Krueger shows. The individual is what matters, not the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, of course. I wouldn't dream of saying that the average student at State U is going to have the same outcomes as the average student at Elite U. But students of equal ability are going to have the same outcomes regardless of which they choose. This is what Dale and Krueger shows. The individual is what matters, not the school.

Brock Purdy was the last player drafted in the '22 NFL draft and he is now the starting QB for the '49ers. Purdy played QA at at nobody Iowa State.