<p>of your quote:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The under or unemployed would have to factor in much more.</p>
<p>The site cites I think it is 25, 50, and 75% medians. A median is less rigid a standard over a mean because a median, figuratively speaking, lops off the low and high-enders. The high and low enders still have a play in a median but it takes a bigger concentration of each opposite to affect, say, the 50% median. (Think of a diving contest with high and low scores thrown out, because the resultant score can be affected by these outlying scores because of, say, national bias.)</p>
<p>Nonetheless, those who aren’t gainfully employed would have to affect the medians because in these economic times there are much more of them. From before, when Payscale reported these surveys wrt colleges, there are some which haven’t had a downturn in median payscale as compared to recent reporting by the site. Yet another bogus feature of Payscale. </p>
<p>I realize Ivy college grads would probably be more recession-proof over non Ivies, but still, there has to be a component in the survey that would take down the median a good $10,000 or so for each college because of the times, agreed. But just as certain colleges would be recession-proof, one has to think that those with just bac degrees would be affected more in these times than those, say, with advanced professional degrees. </p>
<p>As for part (a) of your quote, I would agree also, but not as strongly. I would say the ranking aspect of the colleges would be a 70% correlation between Payscale’s salary findings for the colleges and reality for each, let’s say for the top 200. (But we will never know this will we, so Payscale better hope the colleges don’t question their findings, especially wrt the mix of professions.) Still a 30% correct-college-ranking “error” would be quite high for a site like Payscale, which purports these findings to be highly accurate.</p>
<p>Don’t get me started on USN’s rankings, mainly “garbage in”… ; )</p>