6 ms·

This shows correlation but not causation. Hypothetically: people with certain background (social class) and traits (IQ) are more likely to go to college, and th

This shows correlation but not causation. Hypothetically: people with certain background (social class) and traits (IQ) are more likely to go to college, and they would fare as well or better without college. I'd be very interested in stats of lifetime earnings difference that was corrected for selection bias.

uberman 9y ago
Would a 1% sample of the US population that included level of education and earnings do the trick for you? https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_pums_csv_2016&prodType=document https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/... It is not going to have variables like "Social status of your parents" or "IQ" but it does have a rather extensive list of demographic variables to control for. Let me know what you uncover.
- jessriedel 9y ago
  IQ, conscientiousness, and parental social status are probably the three biggest determiners of success, presumably none of which are being controlled for.
- the_watcher 9y ago
  Sample size doesn't impact the fact that you shouldn't draw causal conclusions from merely correlative data.
  - uberman 9y ago
    Then perhaps you might want to check out some twins studies: http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/causal_educ_earnings.pdf http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/causal_educ_earnings.pd... and/or http://www.nytimes.com/1992/08/19/education/twins-study-shows-school-is-sound-investment.html http://www.nytimes.com/1992/08/19/education/twins-study-show... I'm going to strongly encourage my kids to go to college. Frankly if you/anyone is not convinced that higher education leads to increased earnings then by all means forgo college and keep your kids at home. My kids will have plenty of competition for jobs from those with higher degrees from around the world as it is.
    - ithilglin909 9y ago
      I would absolutely prefer to send my (hypothetical) children to college for the reasons you've stated here. But really: are increased earnings due to anything people learn at college or because of its social value? I.e. it's been over-sold and many people will assume you're dumb/couldn't get accepted somewhere if you don't play along.
    - kimmel 9y ago
      The 1992 study is basically irrelevant since the job market has changed drastically. There are way more self taught computer people out making money without degrees than in 1992 as just one major factor that has changed in over two decades. The Berkeley study is missing a lot of data and is dated as well from 1999. I searched for the most common high paying non-degree jobs and found nothing about them. Plumbers, electricians, construction contractors, certain kinds of farmers, etc... Recently on HN it was said that construction works in California were starting at $45 an hour in many places. I know plenty of people who got non-stem degrees that do not make that 10+ years out of college and working professionally in their field the whole time. Furthermore there is the trend of people getting degrees in fields that will not yield jobs or fields that are over saturated. Take lawyers and this article from 2016 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/business/dealbook/an-expensive-law-degree-and-no-place-to-use-it.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/business/dealbook/an-expe... and this one from 2017 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/06/28/law-schools-hunkering-down-enrollment-slips/430213001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/06/28/law-schools-h... . There are plenty more articles going back more than a few years about it. Then there is the issue of colleges and textbooks constantly increasing costs while not increasing the value of the degree itself. In fact in many instances degrees are worth less now since colleges pass students to keep that fire hose of government backed money coming in. There are numerous documentaries on youtube that go into depth of how colleges are ripping people off in many instances. The main value of college is the ability to network with people so that finding and getting a job becomes easier. The job hunting process is broken and there are always new startups trying to fix it. In high school they pushed college as the solution to everything harder than a drug dealer slinging product. It is easy to find people who got that degree and their job and earning problems are not solved. Going to college no matter what is a dogma. It is not clear at all that a college education is going to increase your lifetime earning. You have to pick the right field, get your debt settled quickly, live in or move to the right area and conquer the job hunting process and then you might come out ahead. I think high school students should be better educated on how the market works and there are plenty of non-degree jobs that have serious earning potential. Also the US has neglected trade schools as a job training solution while European countries have not.

uberman 9y ago

Would a 1% sample of the US population that included level of education and earnings do the trick for you? https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_pums_csv_2016&prodType=document https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/... It is not going to have variables like "Social status of your parents" or "IQ" but it does have a rather extensive list of demographic variables to control for. Let me know what you uncover.

jessriedel 9y ago
IQ, conscientiousness, and parental social status are probably the three biggest determiners of success, presumably none of which are being controlled for.
the_watcher 9y ago
Sample size doesn't impact the fact that you shouldn't draw causal conclusions from merely correlative data.
- uberman 9y ago
  Then perhaps you might want to check out some twins studies: http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/causal_educ_earnings.pdf http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/causal_educ_earnings.pd... and/or http://www.nytimes.com/1992/08/19/education/twins-study-shows-school-is-sound-investment.html http://www.nytimes.com/1992/08/19/education/twins-study-show... I'm going to strongly encourage my kids to go to college. Frankly if you/anyone is not convinced that higher education leads to increased earnings then by all means forgo college and keep your kids at home. My kids will have plenty of competition for jobs from those with higher degrees from around the world as it is.
  - ithilglin909 9y ago
    I would absolutely prefer to send my (hypothetical) children to college for the reasons you've stated here. But really: are increased earnings due to anything people learn at college or because of its social value? I.e. it's been over-sold and many people will assume you're dumb/couldn't get accepted somewhere if you don't play along.
  - kimmel 9y ago
    The 1992 study is basically irrelevant since the job market has changed drastically. There are way more self taught computer people out making money without degrees than in 1992 as just one major factor that has changed in over two decades. The Berkeley study is missing a lot of data and is dated as well from 1999. I searched for the most common high paying non-degree jobs and found nothing about them. Plumbers, electricians, construction contractors, certain kinds of farmers, etc... Recently on HN it was said that construction works in California were starting at $45 an hour in many places. I know plenty of people who got non-stem degrees that do not make that 10+ years out of college and working professionally in their field the whole time. Furthermore there is the trend of people getting degrees in fields that will not yield jobs or fields that are over saturated. Take lawyers and this article from 2016 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/business/dealbook/an-expensive-law-degree-and-no-place-to-use-it.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/business/dealbook/an-expe... and this one from 2017 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/06/28/law-schools-hunkering-down-enrollment-slips/430213001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/06/28/law-schools-h... . There are plenty more articles going back more than a few years about it. Then there is the issue of colleges and textbooks constantly increasing costs while not increasing the value of the degree itself. In fact in many instances degrees are worth less now since colleges pass students to keep that fire hose of government backed money coming in. There are numerous documentaries on youtube that go into depth of how colleges are ripping people off in many instances. The main value of college is the ability to network with people so that finding and getting a job becomes easier. The job hunting process is broken and there are always new startups trying to fix it. In high school they pushed college as the solution to everything harder than a drug dealer slinging product. It is easy to find people who got that degree and their job and earning problems are not solved. Going to college no matter what is a dogma. It is not clear at all that a college education is going to increase your lifetime earning. You have to pick the right field, get your debt settled quickly, live in or move to the right area and conquer the job hunting process and then you might come out ahead. I think high school students should be better educated on how the market works and there are plenty of non-degree jobs that have serious earning potential. Also the US has neglected trade schools as a job training solution while European countries have not.