<p>I think you & poetgrl are misconstruing the conclusions of the Dale & Krueger 2002 paper mentioned by the NTY article. I took the time to read the whole bloody paper. </p>
<p>The study does conclude that for URMs increased earnings significantly by attending a more selective school.</p>
<p>However, for other groups it is not that going to a less selective school doesn’t impact their earnings, it is that attending the school that offers the best fit for the desired future field of employment trumps the selectivity of the school. </p>
<p>I.e., if a student intends to be an engineer, the student is better off going to a less-selective school with an engineering dept, than a more selective school without one, i.e. an engineer should go to Penn State (school avg SAT 1038) instead of Bryn Mawr (school avg GPA 1370).</p>
<p>On the other hand, the magnitude of both the gain and loss are likely smaller than what most people (on all sides of the argument) think, at least at the undergraduate level (as opposed to places like domestic MD medical schools, where about half of applicants are shut out completely).</p>
<p>Person X displaces person Y in college A. So person X has to go to college B, while person Y goes to college A instead of college B (assuming that college A is the slightly more selective one in general). It is not like the difference between going to college A versus not going to college at all.</p>
<p>All children should have the right to decide to pursue ANY field, and not have that decision made for them because they did not receive the proper preparation for it that they deserved to receive.</p>
<p>The 2002 paper is the update to their original paper that concluded that going to a more selective school pays more. The 2002 paper says that non-URMs should go to a school that is a better fit for what profession they want to pursue.</p>
<p>“All children should have the right to decide to pursue ANY field, and not have that decision made for them because they did not receive the proper preparation for it that they deserved to receive.”</p>
<p>yes, and in an ideal world, the best case would always occur and there would be unicorns and willy wonka would be a real guy, cuz I want to go to that place right now.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, I don’t really believe there is concern for “mismatch” I am cynical of the motives of those who claim concern over the poor stigmatized AA kid who “Stole my kid’s spot. He would have been happier somewhere he could have become a chemist.”</p>
<p>Wasn’t there some paper that said it didn’t even matter where you attended or even where you were admitted but the best predictor of financial success was where you applied?</p>
<p>Yes, bovertine, that is the exact study. I can’t get a link to the darn 2010 paper, the princeton edition where it was originally published is no longer working.</p>
<p>Anyway, it’s the 2010 Dale and Krueger. Others with access to their university data base can find it. Mine is down right now.</p>
<p>But seriously. Is there any evidence that the increased diversity that AA creates makes students, like from Harvard, for example, less dumb about issues of race?</p>
<p>" but I also wonder what percentage of this pool end up at their state flagship universities by choice to be with friends, due to counselors, or because they love sports or other activities more prominent there than in the ivies.**"</p>
<p>Or HBUC’s? Maybe not true anymore, and me and mine didn’t score 750, ( well D scored above that but it ws writing, so…) but we did well above average, and me and my kids did not even apply to Ivy’s. But husband did, but he is first gen in the US. Stop me if you’ve heard this one, bit I came to CC because husband thought D should practice for the SAT, and tame it more than once. I thoughts had lost his mind. Both of us are physicians, and presumably well educated. And I was the with the “good” SAT scores. But we had otally different ideas about academic priorities. Live and learn! And balance.</p>
<p>But, the idea that only URMs benefit from having URMs on campus is not something most educated people believe. Most educated people believe that the presence of a representative number of URMs on campus is beneficial to everyone.</p>
<p>If schools were vocational only, maybe it would not be the case. But, they aren’t vocational only. They are bastions of education, learning. What good does it do to sit in a class and discuss the world without living in the world. Any scientist will acknowledge this. You can’t go hole up in some monolithic place reading books and come out expecting to “know” the world. Any education is faulty, imho, if it does not include the world, or at the very least, the country where you live.</p>