What a fantastic idea ... and without numbers to back it up, I believe this is what was effectively done 50-70 years ago through the Higher Education Act of 1965.
This has a sort of 2010s post-Google pre-self-awareness argumentation stink to it: I'm here, I know how to fix this, I've looked at the #s and have 5 #s to change that will fix it. Someone else will do it, and it's easy, I know.
Questionable essay if it can’t get basic premises correct.
Edit: Selection bias. Rich people go to Harvard. Hardly surprising that Harvard graduates have different outcomes from the general population. For example:
The median family income for Harvard undergraduates is $168,800—more than three times the national median, according to a recent study.
Edit: Don’t use Harvard as an example of university causing positive outcomes because the group of people that enter Harvard are not representative
> 10 years after enrolling, the average income of former Harvard University students who are working and no longer in school is $136,700, which is 299% higher than the national median. Sources, U.S. Department of Education College Scorecard / Department of Treasury.
An increase of 299% means multiplying by (1 + 2.99) = 3.99x, which the OP rounds to 4x.
I dropped out of college and my earnings last year (still in my mid/late 20s, have easily another promo or job hop before 32) are over double the Harvard median, therefore dropping out of school causes you to earn 8x the national median.
"Doesn't count" you say? "Confounding variables" you say? "Causation and correlation aren't the same" you say? I'll just have to take your word for it, grad, it's not like I have a college degree after all!
P.S. I love rejecting Ivy League grads in interview loops. They've very consistently been the absolute worst performers on LC easies.
Biased much? Lording acceptance/rejection over any candidate seems like a trip
But to stay on topic, I generally agree with the consensus of this thread and your comment. The inputs and outputs here probably aren’t linked to the schooling itself.
I wouldn't say I lord it over anyone. I'm very polite to all candidates and make my decisions strictly based on technical performance.
That Ivy League grads tend to bizarrely be reliably poor in this regard (a surprising number fail to actually produce working solutions) simply amuses me - no amount of intergenerational wealth is a substitute for competence. Technical aptitude tests are the great equalizer between the haves and the have-nots.
That's not to say I've never given an Ivy League grad a thumbs up in the loop, but their performance tends to subvert popular opinion and expectations of "Ivy League grads" as a group.
In case anyone's curious, the group that most reliably aces the challenges I provide are first generation Chinese immigrants. It's basically the norm that they will not only produce working solutions to every problem, but that they complete their solutions quicker than other candidates, and that their solutions are computationally quicker and more efficient than those of other candidates as well.
I am not Chinese or an immigrant. I have no loyalty or allegiance to China. I would describe China's political system as apalling. Hypothetically, as a business owner with valuable IP, I'd be weary of first generation Chinese immigrants on espionage grounds. First generation Chinese immigrants might as well be the least likely group for me to offer preferential bias to.
That said, I can't argue with results. If you've got the skills, I couldn't care less about the reputation of the place you came from, regardless of whether it's a specific country, specific school, or lack thereof. Also, I'm not given enough of a vested interest in my employer's company to care about whether they suffer IP theft, nor is my job to prevent that, only to judge who among our candidates has the requisite aptitude and who doesn't.
Saying 'I love' makes you lose credibility and deprecates the points you are making.
> I dropped out of college and my earnings last year (still in my mid/late 20s, have easily another promo or job hop before 32) are over double the Harvard median, therefore dropping out of school causes you to earn 8x the national median.
Good luck going forward. This is a small slice of your life. Things can and do change with earnings. As many old timers might tell you there are always many 'changes of fortune' where people who are beneath you early on end up surpassing you later in life.
That's because you didn't go to Harvard (/s) and you need to learn yourself what Selection Bias is.
If Harvard selected its students randomly from the general population of all 18-year-olds (including those who dropped out of high school), then it would be statistically relevant that Harvard grads make 299% more than the national median.
But this is not the case. Harvard chooses its students from the brightest, highest achieving, most highly motivated kids in the nation (and whose families tend to be wealthy.) It is reasonable to think that had Harvard vanished and these kids never got a college education, they would still succeed greatly in life.
So to mitigate the selection bias, we might compare Harvard grads versus the population of kids were in the top 5% of their high school class (but even that's not perfect.) The measured boost of the "Harvard Super Drug" would be considerably lower than 3x--maybe 10% if that.
> We should look at the change in income for students drawn from the low-income population
You'd really have to compare outcomes among a population of low-income students who equally "could have gone to Harvard" but some of them didn't for whatever reason. And even here there's a hazard of selection bias--as one example, a "reason" for not going to Harvard might be teenage pregnancy, which is certainly going to put a dent in economic outcome.
If you compare low income students in the top 5% of their HS class who went to state school vs. Harvard I'll bet the gap is smaller still. For example, here's a list of where Fortune 500 CEOs went to college--it's mostly state schools. Warren Buffett went to U. of Nebraska, Tim Cook to Auburn, Larry Page to U. Michigan, etc. https://twitter.com/daveckang/status/1667946905966637061
I had to add Selection bias afterwards, because I had thought it was bleeding obvious but user li_am made a snarky remark so I made the comment clearer.: I just don’t understand how you and li_am could totally miss the point, The 98% pass rate shows it so clearly. Note: I am not from the USA but I know this shit.
This is sort of like the people who want to print more money to solve poverty while leaving the number of apartments and cheeseburgers the same.
Printing more degrees won't create more six figure plus jobs for the holders of those degrees. It isn't the education that Harvard provides that makes students valuable, it's the selection process. Intelligent and well connected people get into Harvard, it you hire a Harvard person they will be either intelligent or well connected, perhaps even both. Get rid of the selection process and admit less intelligent and less well connected people and those people won't achieve the same results.
The selection effect is real, but there is very real value in a university education, too. The author was raised by a single mom and did not have amazing grades in high school. He's watched the door to the middle class that he walked through slowly close over the past 30 years. He's not just talking about Harvard. State schools have become much more selective and expensive, too.
The difference between this and printing money is that money is intrinsically worthless, and a university education is valuable for the knowledge and skills it imparts and the social capital it builds. Controversial perhaps on HN, but true.
> It isn't the education that Harvard provides that makes students valuable, it's the selection process.
As I am sure others will note there is much more to it than even what you have mentioned.
For one thing as a rule and for sure a generality (based on my own personal experience) you are around more high performing people (to be clear not everyone but enough of them) to pull you up as well and be able to learn from them and be in a great environment (while at school and possibly after). (This applies to any 'top' school not just Harvard). Again very generally a top school is going to have overall a better faculty (or teaching assistants). Better facilities. More connections to hiring companies. (Well known, right?)
Later after you graduate a degree from a top University is branding and gets you exposure and better opportunities.
There is also the very positive branding and halo that one gets from going to a top school. It's part of the reason that even if Kia or Hyundai made a car that was as good as or better than a Porsche 911 it wouldn't matter.
In fact there is a saying I heard once something like 'Sophia Loren without a nose is not Sophia Loren'.
> Get rid of the selection process and admit less intelligent and less well connected people and those people won't achieve the same results.
As mentioned the branding alone is worth it's weight in gold.
That said important point is the value as with any branding is driven a great deal by the media and popular culture. (Super important point right off "IVY League" branding goes a long long way).
Cost of education continues to rise, yet (undergrad) enrollment in higher ed leveled off ~2010.
Can anyone meta explain what's going on?
Are applications down?
Is higher ed constraining the supply?
Are males being "left behind", like we've been warned (eg more high school drop outs and less college)? Meaning male enrollment is decreasing faster than female enrollment is increasing?
Are higher tuitions diverting demand to alternatives, like trades, voc-tech, and online education?
If supply is constrained, as ProfGalloway claims, then I wholeheartedly support increasing supply.
But if demand is down, I'd like to think about possible solutions a little more more. Like free/cheap education (which I also support).
Further #1: Future admissions need to look more like a lottery.
Futher #2: Separately, but probably relevant somehow, these hedge funds and real estate moguls hiding behind university brands needs to be subjected to repeated radical cashectomies. Maybe like requiring them to prop up other (struggling) institutions (another of ProfGalloway's suggestions). Maybe erect a wall between funds and schools. Maybe a new category of corporation, where the endowments need to be spent (use it or lose it).
29 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 94.1 ms ] threadI think you missed all the charts too
Bullshit. 98% of Harvard students graduate: https://college.harvard.edu/resources/faq/what-harvards-grad...
Questionable essay if it can’t get basic premises correct.
Edit: Selection bias. Rich people go to Harvard. Hardly surprising that Harvard graduates have different outcomes from the general population. For example:
Edit: Don’t use Harvard as an example of university causing positive outcomes because the group of people that enter Harvard are not representative> 10 years after enrolling, the average income of former Harvard University students who are working and no longer in school is $136,700, which is 299% higher than the national median. Sources, U.S. Department of Education College Scorecard / Department of Treasury.
An increase of 299% means multiplying by (1 + 2.99) = 3.99x, which the OP rounds to 4x.
"Doesn't count" you say? "Confounding variables" you say? "Causation and correlation aren't the same" you say? I'll just have to take your word for it, grad, it's not like I have a college degree after all!
P.S. I love rejecting Ivy League grads in interview loops. They've very consistently been the absolute worst performers on LC easies.
But to stay on topic, I generally agree with the consensus of this thread and your comment. The inputs and outputs here probably aren’t linked to the schooling itself.
That Ivy League grads tend to bizarrely be reliably poor in this regard (a surprising number fail to actually produce working solutions) simply amuses me - no amount of intergenerational wealth is a substitute for competence. Technical aptitude tests are the great equalizer between the haves and the have-nots.
That's not to say I've never given an Ivy League grad a thumbs up in the loop, but their performance tends to subvert popular opinion and expectations of "Ivy League grads" as a group.
In case anyone's curious, the group that most reliably aces the challenges I provide are first generation Chinese immigrants. It's basically the norm that they will not only produce working solutions to every problem, but that they complete their solutions quicker than other candidates, and that their solutions are computationally quicker and more efficient than those of other candidates as well.
I am not Chinese or an immigrant. I have no loyalty or allegiance to China. I would describe China's political system as apalling. Hypothetically, as a business owner with valuable IP, I'd be weary of first generation Chinese immigrants on espionage grounds. First generation Chinese immigrants might as well be the least likely group for me to offer preferential bias to.
That said, I can't argue with results. If you've got the skills, I couldn't care less about the reputation of the place you came from, regardless of whether it's a specific country, specific school, or lack thereof. Also, I'm not given enough of a vested interest in my employer's company to care about whether they suffer IP theft, nor is my job to prevent that, only to judge who among our candidates has the requisite aptitude and who doesn't.
Saying 'I love' makes you lose credibility and deprecates the points you are making.
> I dropped out of college and my earnings last year (still in my mid/late 20s, have easily another promo or job hop before 32) are over double the Harvard median, therefore dropping out of school causes you to earn 8x the national median.
Good luck going forward. This is a small slice of your life. Things can and do change with earnings. As many old timers might tell you there are always many 'changes of fortune' where people who are beneath you early on end up surpassing you later in life.
$42K seems to be more accurate unless they are getting to $32K by somehow correcting for age.
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2021/demo/p60-27...
That's because you didn't go to Harvard (/s) and you need to learn yourself what Selection Bias is.
If Harvard selected its students randomly from the general population of all 18-year-olds (including those who dropped out of high school), then it would be statistically relevant that Harvard grads make 299% more than the national median.
But this is not the case. Harvard chooses its students from the brightest, highest achieving, most highly motivated kids in the nation (and whose families tend to be wealthy.) It is reasonable to think that had Harvard vanished and these kids never got a college education, they would still succeed greatly in life.
So to mitigate the selection bias, we might compare Harvard grads versus the population of kids were in the top 5% of their high school class (but even that's not perfect.) The measured boost of the "Harvard Super Drug" would be considerably lower than 3x--maybe 10% if that.
With the new edits, robocat's comment now make sense to me.
That said, there's still a big caveat: We should look at the change in income for students drawn from the low-income population.
And please follow the guidelines: There's no need to lob insults.
You'd really have to compare outcomes among a population of low-income students who equally "could have gone to Harvard" but some of them didn't for whatever reason. And even here there's a hazard of selection bias--as one example, a "reason" for not going to Harvard might be teenage pregnancy, which is certainly going to put a dent in economic outcome.
If you compare low income students in the top 5% of their HS class who went to state school vs. Harvard I'll bet the gap is smaller still. For example, here's a list of where Fortune 500 CEOs went to college--it's mostly state schools. Warren Buffett went to U. of Nebraska, Tim Cook to Auburn, Larry Page to U. Michigan, etc. https://twitter.com/daveckang/status/1667946905966637061
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/why-match-school-and-s...
Printing more degrees won't create more six figure plus jobs for the holders of those degrees. It isn't the education that Harvard provides that makes students valuable, it's the selection process. Intelligent and well connected people get into Harvard, it you hire a Harvard person they will be either intelligent or well connected, perhaps even both. Get rid of the selection process and admit less intelligent and less well connected people and those people won't achieve the same results.
The difference between this and printing money is that money is intrinsically worthless, and a university education is valuable for the knowledge and skills it imparts and the social capital it builds. Controversial perhaps on HN, but true.
As I am sure others will note there is much more to it than even what you have mentioned.
For one thing as a rule and for sure a generality (based on my own personal experience) you are around more high performing people (to be clear not everyone but enough of them) to pull you up as well and be able to learn from them and be in a great environment (while at school and possibly after). (This applies to any 'top' school not just Harvard). Again very generally a top school is going to have overall a better faculty (or teaching assistants). Better facilities. More connections to hiring companies. (Well known, right?)
Later after you graduate a degree from a top University is branding and gets you exposure and better opportunities.
There is also the very positive branding and halo that one gets from going to a top school. It's part of the reason that even if Kia or Hyundai made a car that was as good as or better than a Porsche 911 it wouldn't matter.
In fact there is a saying I heard once something like 'Sophia Loren without a nose is not Sophia Loren'.
> Get rid of the selection process and admit less intelligent and less well connected people and those people won't achieve the same results.
As mentioned the branding alone is worth it's weight in gold.
That said important point is the value as with any branding is driven a great deal by the media and popular culture. (Super important point right off "IVY League" branding goes a long long way).
https://colemanhughes.substack.com/p/10-notes-on-the-end-of-...
Can anyone meta explain what's going on?
Are applications down?
Is higher ed constraining the supply?
Are males being "left behind", like we've been warned (eg more high school drop outs and less college)? Meaning male enrollment is decreasing faster than female enrollment is increasing?
Are higher tuitions diverting demand to alternatives, like trades, voc-tech, and online education?
Am I just misunderstanding the numbers?
"Total fall enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by attendance status, sex of student, and control of institution: Selected years, 1947 through 2029" https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d20/tables/dt20_303.10.a...
"Characteristics of Postsecondary Students" https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/csb/postsecondary...
"Q: information on postsecondary enrollment trends?" Answer: https://nces.ed.gov/fastFacts/display.asp?id=98
--
I am in favor of more education.
If supply is constrained, as ProfGalloway claims, then I wholeheartedly support increasing supply.
But if demand is down, I'd like to think about possible solutions a little more more. Like free/cheap education (which I also support).
Further #1: Future admissions need to look more like a lottery.
Futher #2: Separately, but probably relevant somehow, these hedge funds and real estate moguls hiding behind university brands needs to be subjected to repeated radical cashectomies. Maybe like requiring them to prop up other (struggling) institutions (another of ProfGalloway's suggestions). Maybe erect a wall between funds and schools. Maybe a new category of corporation, where the endowments need to be spent (use it or lose it).