Reply to Degrees where college prestige matters

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "Degrees where college prestige matters"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I’m the pp. I’m bored & quickly found the article I just mentioned. It’s called “Catching up is hard to do: undergraduate prestige, elite graduate programs, and the earnings premium” by Joni Hersch. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, fall 2019. [/quote]

The summary of this paper seems to say it all:

[b]Abstract[/b]
A commonly held perception is that an elite graduate degree can “scrub” a less prestigious but less costly undergraduate degree. Using data from the National Survey of College Graduates from 2003 through 2017, this paper examines the relationship between the status of undergraduate degrees and earnings among those with elite post-baccalaureate degrees. [b]Few graduates of nonselective institutions earn post-baccalaureate degrees from elite institutions, and even when they do, undergraduate institutional prestige continues to be positively related to earnings overall as well as among those with specific post-baccalaureate degrees including business, law, medicine, and doctoral. Among those who earn a graduate degree from an elite institution, the present value of the earnings advantage to having both an undergraduate and a graduate degree from an elite institution generally greatly exceeds any likely cost advantage from attending a less prestigious undergraduate institution.[/b]

[/quote]

As others have said, correlation and causation are not the same thing. Those who attend an elite undergrad and elite grad school earn more because of who they are, not because of where they went to college.[/quote]

You continue to spew that same argument...but you don't ever cite any 3rd party work that supports your "correlation and causation" argument.

Please, show us the study/analysis.  The study mentioned above is extensive...perhaps you should read the entire study and decide if it supports your position or not.[/quote]

I've read the study. It shows correlation, not causation. Here are the biggest problems:

1) On page 1, the author says there is "extensive evidence of a substantial premium to earning a bachelor’s degree from an elite college or university", and implies she wants to build on this literature. She waits until page 4 to tell us that the evidence in the studies she cites is correlational. Hers is, too.

2) She relegates her discussion of Dale and Krueger to a footnote, where she dismisses it as inconsequential since it focuses on elite colleges like Yale vs. highly selective colleges like Penn State instead of comparing elite colleges to the entire spectrum of other options. Yale vs. Penn State (and other comparisons like it) is the only comparison most people care about, so it's very relevant. And of all the studies she cites, Dale and Krueger gets the closest to showing causation. Plus, many of the other studies weren't even done in the US (irrelevant to us) or were done on much smaller and vastly different population comparisons (flagship universities vs. branch campuses, for instance). It doesn't seem right to cite these as evidence to support your thesis.

Her ominous conclusion implies that if you're admitted to an elite college you'd better go or you'll regret it later, but none of the real world evidence points to that. Look at where the leadership of any company in any field studied.[b] Those with degrees from less selective colleges are represented at least as much as one would expect given that they don't get first crack at many of the most talented high school students.[/b] Sure, there are exceptions, but not many.[/quote]

The study is 50+ pages, yet your "analysis" comprises just of something written on Page #1 and Page #4...sure you read the entire study, absorbed it and provided us an in-depth analysis.  Yet the abstract (and I see no reason why the authors would have an agenda) doesn't support your position at all.

You have produced NOTHING that supports your position.  Reference one similar article/study that supports your position.

Even your final example about leadership can't be supported.

Again...find one independent study that supports your position and post it here.  [/quote]

I did not claim I was giving a thorough analysis. I have other things I do with my time other than respond to angry, contemptuous, condescending posters on an anonymous forum who insist on proof from those who disagree with them, but then won't recognize as legitimate whatever response is provided.

Dale and Krueger is the most recognized study in this realm. It supports my position.

Anyone reading this can (and is encouraged to) look at the leadership teams of whatever there favorite companies are in their field of interest. I'm confused why you say that can't be supported when the evidence is available for anyone to see.[/quote]

So you admit you are just a blowhard that loves to scream "it's correlation not causation" to anything you can shake a stick at.  You have nothing to support it.  Glad we agree on that.

Dale and Krueger does not support your position.  Dale and Krueger says a kid that was accepted to Yale but attends Penn State AND graduated in the top of the class at Penn State performs the same financially as the AVERAGE Yale graduate.  It's actually not a great conclusion that the Penn State kid has to be in top 5% of Penn State grads just to achieve what the average Yale grad has achieved.

Let's look at your "favorite" companies example, because once more, it doesn't support your thesis.  12% of all Fortune 500 companies have a CEO that went to an Ivy League college for undergrad (this is not counting Ivy MBAs, JDS, etc.).  Think about that, just 8 schools out of 3,000 4 year residential schools (0.2% of all 4-year residential schools) produce 12% of Fortune 500 company CEOs.  If you look at Top 25 schools, you get to like 35% of all Fortune 500 CEOs.  Again, that is a massive skew towards top schools.

But sure...just keep screaming "correlation isn't causation" into the wind, because that's what you do.[/quote]

Your logic is deeply flawed. If you seemed like a nice person who genuinely wanted to understand what I'm saying, I'd take the time to explain. You don't.[/quote]

That's what people who have no actual leg to stand on post...glad you admit you are beat.

Now go scream out the window "correlation isn't causation".[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics