Do Elite Colleges Lead to Higher Salaries? - Gifted Issues Discussion Forum

Do Elite Colleges Lead to Higher Salaries? Only for Some Professions
By ERIC R. EIDE and MICHAEL J. HILMER
Wall Street Journal
January 31, 2016

Quote

...

Diplomas from prestigious schools boost future earnings only in certain fields, while in other fields they simply don�t make a difference.

Specifically, for business and other liberal-arts majors, the prestige of the school has a major impact on future earnings expectations. But for fields like science, technology, education and math, it largely doesn�t matter whether students go to a prestigious, expensive school or a low-priced one�expected earnings turn out the same. So, families may be wasting money by chasing an expensive diploma in those fields.

...

Outside of STEM, it matters tremendously where a student receives a degree.

The starkest earnings differences are for business majors, where graduates from the selective institutions earn 12% more on average than midtier graduates and 18% more than graduates from less-selective colleges. Likewise, social-science majors from selective colleges earn 11% more than their midtier counterparts and 14% more than those from less-selective schools.

For education majors, the differences are 6% and 9%, respectively. In humanities, graduates of selective schools earn 11% more than those from less-selective ones, although they don�t earn more than those from midtier schools.

I find this kind of analysis highly problematic on two counts.

1. Reducing education to salaries.
2. Averages mean nothing without considering the standard deviations and distribution. Also this is not considering location and area of employment.

My take is if you are an elite student who can take advantage of what the university offers beyond just doing your class work an elite university makes a difference. For example, research, cross-disciplinary work. If not any good university will teach you the class curriculum.

I'm going to keep refreshing my browser until JonLaw weighs in. I need a good sardonic giggle. I'm waiting JonLaw .....

Originally Posted by suevv

I'm going to keep refreshing my browser until JonLaw weighs in. I need a good sardonic giggle. I'm waiting JonLaw .....

I generally don't argue with news feeds.

Such data also can't be used to make inferences on causality. It is quite possible that people with higher earning potentials tend also to be accepted by elite schools, instead of elite schools adding "value" to these people. I seem to remember some studies that show exactly this (there was one comparing UPenn graduates with Penn State graduates who were accepted also by UPenn but chose Penn State instead).

Originally Posted by playandlearn

It is quite possible that people with higher earning potentials tend also to be accepted by elite schools, instead of elite schools adding "value" to these people.

This may be the premise of the book "It's the Student, Not the College", discussed in an old thread here.

Also the book "Where You Go is not Who You'll Be", discussed in an old thread here.

The research tome, "How College Affects Students" mentioned in an old post here may also be of interest. The defining characteristic may be internal locus of control.

Originally Posted by playandlearn

Such data also can't be used to make inferences on causality. It is quite possible that people with higher earning potentials tend also to be accepted by elite schools, instead of elite schools adding "value" to these people.

They did try to control for this. From the article:

Quote

(It�s important to note that we controlled for numerous other factors that might influence postgraduation earnings, such as family income, race/ethnicity, gender, marital status, SAT score, postgraduate degree and age at graduation and more.)

Originally Posted by Bostonian

They did try to control for this. From the article:

Quote

(It�s important to note that we controlled for numerous other factors that might influence postgraduation earnings, such as family income, race/ethnicity, gender, marital status, SAT score, postgraduate degree and age at graduation and more.)

Few studies seem to try to control for student attitudinal characteristics which may be described as grit, persistence, perseverance, growth mindset, resilience, internal locus of control...?

This is not to say that the article is not making a valid point. In which case the higher earnings in some fields may be related, in part, to strong alumni networks. This is something which other colleges & universities could potentially focus on building/improving as a means of increasing the future careers of their students.

It seems logical that a student that aspires for a more elite college would aspire for greater career success.

Originally Posted by Wren

It seems logical that a student that aspires for a more elite college would aspire for greater career success.

But career success does not necessarily equal higher income. My alma mater tends to attract students with a bent towards social justice. It's a highly ranked school, except when it comes to rankings by post-graduation income. Lots of my classmates have great careers in advocacy and helping others, but they're not necessarily making a lot of money.

Originally Posted by KnittingMama

Originally Posted by Wren

It seems logical that a student that aspires for a more elite college would aspire for greater career success.

But career success does not necessarily equal higher income. My alma mater tends to attract students with a bent towards social justice. It's a highly ranked school, except when it comes to rankings by post-graduation income. Lots of my classmates have great careers in advocacy and helping others, but they're not necessarily making a lot of money.

I call shenanigans!

All of the highly ranked schools provide direct access to premier consulting jobs and other superior careers, meaning that all such schools necessarily top the charts of post-graduation income.

Plus, money is how you measure your valuation in the global economy.

It's really the only objective scorecard we have.

for instance, if I make $400,000 per year, I can find my ranking on the income charts to compare myself against the other players.

Since I'm in the 1%, I can be satisfied that I am doing ok, for now. I can't relax and become complacent, since it's really only the first step to winning the game. There are a ton of people in the 1%.

I think the ultimate goal is to reach the top 0.01% in terms of both income and wealth.

http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/income-rank/

Does anyone notify you if you've won? Just curious about the process. I mean, there's actually a phone call from Stockholm, for example. I realize that this is a less elite selection process when you get right down to it (after all, loads of people win Nobel prizes, and there are several "winners" each year, even, so perhaps not the same).

Now that I consider it, maybe if you have to wonder if you've won, then you know that you have not. Thanks. That was helpful, Jon.

HowlerKarma,

Don't be silly. Of course there is no phone call, if you are "only" in the top 0.01%. There are nearly 32000 other people in the US alone that are in the same category. That's hardly exclusive!

Now, if you really want to "make it", you need to be in the top 1% of the top 0.01%. That gets you on the Forbes 400. And yes, knowing a few people that were on that list, they do get called.