Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's up with the Penn numbers?

For some reason Penn has two separate (but seemingly identical) categories. Bachelors in Computer & Information Sciences at $246k and Bachelors in Computer Science at $146k. The data shows 50% more graduates in CIS vs. CS. Most other schools just have data for one or the other, but not both.

I guess it's worth it to add the "Information" to your Penn degree...worth another $100k/year .

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dale & Krueger's articles are both pretty dated now too. I'm surprised they are still brought up so much, especially since their fairly myopic focus on income has be questioned (rightfully so, I'd say).
The high earning fields and majors selected by students are completely different now. We've also had economic uncertainty, which would make an update interesting to read.

For those of you with girls, the second look at the Dale & Krueger data did also show a significant difference for women. Attending a school with a 100-point higher average SAT score increased earnings by 14 percent and reduced marriage by 4 percent.
For low income kids, the chance to become 1%s is also better at elite colleges.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/does-it-matter-where-you-go-college/577816/

There's no reason to believe the numbers would be any different now than they were 12 years ago, and the "myopic focus on income" is exactly why their research is totally relevant to the ranking that began this thread.

Also, you neglected to mention that the 14 percent bump for women is an average over a decade and that it was found to be due to more hours worked, not higher salaries.

if you stay in the workforce longer during your prime working years, you are almost definitely getting paid more. The elite college female grads keep working and moving up. That is a pretty big difference and the outcome is what ultimately matters right? The same is also true for mobility to the very top (though I totally get not everyone is striving to be in the 1%).

Anonymous wrote:What's up with the Penn numbers?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dale & Krueger's articles are both pretty dated now too. I'm surprised they are still brought up so much, especially since their fairly myopic focus on income has be questioned (rightfully so, I'd say).
The high earning fields and majors selected by students are completely different now. We've also had economic uncertainty, which would make an update interesting to read.

For those of you with girls, the second look at the Dale & Krueger data did also show a significant difference for women. Attending a school with a 100-point higher average SAT score increased earnings by 14 percent and reduced marriage by 4 percent.
For low income kids, the chance to become 1%s is also better at elite colleges.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/does-it-matter-where-you-go-college/577816/

There's no reason to believe the numbers would be any different now than they were 12 years ago, and the "myopic focus on income" is exactly why their research is totally relevant to the ranking that began this thread.

Also, you neglected to mention that the 14 percent bump for women is an average over a decade and that it was found to be due to more hours worked, not higher salaries.

Anonymous wrote:Dale & Krueger's articles are both pretty dated now too. I'm surprised they are still brought up so much, especially since their fairly myopic focus on income has be questioned (rightfully so, I'd say).
The high earning fields and majors selected by students are completely different now. We've also had economic uncertainty, which would make an update interesting to read.

For those of you with girls, the second look at the Dale & Krueger data did also show a significant difference for women. Attending a school with a 100-point higher average SAT score increased earnings by 14 percent and reduced marriage by 4 percent.
For low income kids, the chance to become 1%s is also better at elite colleges.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/does-it-matter-where-you-go-college/577816/

Anonymous wrote:Dale & Krueger's articles are both pretty dated now too. I'm surprised they are still brought up so much, especially since their fairly myopic focus on income has be questioned (rightfully so, I'd say).
The high earning fields and majors selected by students are completely different now. We've also had economic uncertainty, which would make an update interesting to read.

For those of you with girls, the second look at the Dale & Krueger data did also show a significant difference for women. Attending a school with a 100-point higher average SAT score increased earnings by 14 percent and reduced marriage by 4 percent.
For low income kids, the chance to become 1%s is also better at elite colleges.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/does-it-matter-where-you-go-college/577816/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG, this nonsense again? Do yourself a favor and read Dale and Kruger, then ignore this.

Please stop with the Dale and Kruger nonsense.

Sure, as soon as someone gets their research debunking it published 3 times with over 3 decades of data.

It's not about debunking...it's just that Dale & Krueger can only focus on overall averages. So, yes a high-achieving kid that was accepted to Yale but chooses Penn State will do just as well as the average Yale grad.

However, do they just as well as the Yale kids that are in the top 10% of Yale (?)...do they have a history of producing extreme positive outcomes that are heavily concentrated in top school graduates (?)

If your goal after college is to just go and work at Accenture, then Penn State and Yale will have identical outcomes. If you are hoping to work for a hedge fund or a VC fund...well, I am not sure Dale & Krueger can really tell you anything with respect to things like that.

"a high-achieving kid that was accepted to Yale but chooses Penn State will do just as well as the average Yale grad."

But this isn't what Dale and Krueger conclude. Their research shows that this hypothetical student will do as well as they themselves would do at Yale, not as well as the average Yale student. What they demonstrated is that what matters is the student, not where they get their education (as long as where they choose to attend is a well-chosen safety school, like PSU vs. Yale).

How can they possibly prove that kid will do just as well as if they went to Yale...they have to compare it against something at Yale. Are you saying they compare Kid A that was accepted to Yale and chose PSU vs. Kid B that was accepted to Yale and PSU but chose Yale? Don't they compare against the Yale averages?

They compare the earnings of kid A at PSU (who was accepted to Yale) to any kid B at Yale who had the same SAT score. So someone with the same academic ability and ambition will earn the same amount over time regardless of which of the two colleges they choose.

So, they are basically comparing it against the generally average Yale kid...if they take 1 1550 SAT kid at PSU and compare to all Yale 1550 SAT scorers they will be comparing 1 against several hundred (just in the same class year)? Yes?

Look, I applaud what they are trying to accomplish and I don't dispute the average outcome...but are they even looking at same majors? I mean a PSU kid with a 1550 majoring in engineering (actually with almost any SAT score) will probably do better than the Yale 1550s that are all liberal arts majors.

Anonymous wrote:The data is not perfect, but at least it is impartial coming from the government database. There are many factors to take into account when reviewing:

1. What %age of graduates are actually working in the CS field vs. working for a hedge fund or some other higher-paying profession;
2. How many graduates are working in higher cost of living / higher salary areas...Boston, NYC, SFO will pay higher salaries for the same job vs. a U Michigan graduate that stays in MI...even the same company will pay differently based on location;
3. How many graduates are working for start-ups that will pay lower salaries but offer stock and other incentives...that likely pulls down the median for MIT, Stanford, etc. I bet someone that started at Google in 1997 likely had just an OK salary by 2002 but possibly stock options worth $10MM+...not sure that is captured in any of this data

Now, you may argue that the value of the top schools is the optionality...however, there has never been a study showing that an MIT grad working for Google in Boston makes more than a UMD grad working for Google in Boston in the identical role. That doesn't happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG, this nonsense again? Do yourself a favor and read Dale and Kruger, then ignore this.

Please stop with the Dale and Kruger nonsense.

Sure, as soon as someone gets their research debunking it published 3 times with over 3 decades of data.

It's not about debunking...it's just that Dale & Krueger can only focus on overall averages. So, yes a high-achieving kid that was accepted to Yale but chooses Penn State will do just as well as the average Yale grad.

However, do they just as well as the Yale kids that are in the top 10% of Yale (?)...do they have a history of producing extreme positive outcomes that are heavily concentrated in top school graduates (?)

If your goal after college is to just go and work at Accenture, then Penn State and Yale will have identical outcomes. If you are hoping to work for a hedge fund or a VC fund...well, I am not sure Dale & Krueger can really tell you anything with respect to things like that.

"a high-achieving kid that was accepted to Yale but chooses Penn State will do just as well as the average Yale grad."

But this isn't what Dale and Krueger conclude. Their research shows that this hypothetical student will do as well as they themselves would do at Yale, not as well as the average Yale student. What they demonstrated is that what matters is the student, not where they get their education (as long as where they choose to attend is a well-chosen safety school, like PSU vs. Yale).

How can they possibly prove that kid will do just as well as if they went to Yale...they have to compare it against something at Yale. Are you saying they compare Kid A that was accepted to Yale and chose PSU vs. Kid B that was accepted to Yale and PSU but chose Yale? Don't they compare against the Yale averages?

They compare the earnings of kid A at PSU (who was accepted to Yale) to any kid B at Yale who had the same SAT score. So someone with the same academic ability and ambition will earn the same amount over time regardless of which of the two colleges they choose.

Anonymous wrote:The data is not perfect, but at least it is impartial coming from the government database. There are many factors to take into account when reviewing:

1. What %age of graduates are actually working in the CS field vs. working for a hedge fund or some other higher-paying profession;
2. How many graduates are working in higher cost of living / higher salary areas...Boston, NYC, SFO will pay higher salaries for the same job vs. a U Michigan graduate that stays in MI...even the same company will pay differently based on location;
3. How many graduates are working for start-ups that will pay lower salaries but offer stock and other incentives...that likely pulls down the median for MIT, Stanford, etc. I bet someone that started at Google in 1997 likely had just an OK salary by 2002 but possibly stock options worth $10MM+...not sure that is captured in any of this data

Now, you may argue that the value of the top schools is the optionality...however, there has never been a study showing that an MIT grad working for Google in Boston makes more than a UMD grad working for Google in Boston in the identical role. That doesn't happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG, this nonsense again? Do yourself a favor and read Dale and Kruger, then ignore this.

Please stop with the Dale and Kruger nonsense.

Sure, as soon as someone gets their research debunking it published 3 times with over 3 decades of data.

It's not about debunking...it's just that Dale & Krueger can only focus on overall averages. So, yes a high-achieving kid that was accepted to Yale but chooses Penn State will do just as well as the average Yale grad.

However, do they just as well as the Yale kids that are in the top 10% of Yale (?)...do they have a history of producing extreme positive outcomes that are heavily concentrated in top school graduates (?)

If your goal after college is to just go and work at Accenture, then Penn State and Yale will have identical outcomes. If you are hoping to work for a hedge fund or a VC fund...well, I am not sure Dale & Krueger can really tell you anything with respect to things like that.

"a high-achieving kid that was accepted to Yale but chooses Penn State will do just as well as the average Yale grad."

But this isn't what Dale and Krueger conclude. Their research shows that this hypothetical student will do as well as they themselves would do at Yale, not as well as the average Yale student. What they demonstrated is that what matters is the student, not where they get their education (as long as where they choose to attend is a well-chosen safety school, like PSU vs. Yale).

How can they possibly prove that kid will do just as well as if they went to Yale...they have to compare it against something at Yale. Are you saying they compare Kid A that was accepted to Yale and chose PSU vs. Kid B that was accepted to Yale and PSU but chose Yale? Don't they compare against the Yale averages?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are these salaries pulled from kids who are working in CS jobs? I imagine a number of CS kids from the Ivies go into finance or consulting and that could skew the salary data higher for those schools.

It doesn't matter.
In fact schools like Brown has relatively smaller CS school/department compared to CMU, Cornell, Berkeley, etc., and it sends big percentage to to top IB, Finance with super high salary.

CMU, Cornell, Berkeley, etc. have more kids and they are spread out. They send more kids to traditional IT industries.
Hence Brown number is higher, but you can take that into an account when looking at the data.

It doesn't matter where the CS kids go, it's just shows high demand.