<p>Remember though that “outperform” is based on income levels that are averaged per tier. If all the tiers have a range from high to low within them, then the study could still work as a whole. It gets murky if you pick out the highest school of one tier and the lowest school of another school and then compare the salaries. </p>
<p>But do graduates of research universities on the average fare better than those of liberal arts colleges? Do the top ranking liberal art college grads underperform in terms of salary when compared to the top research universities? Do graduates of tier 3 research universities on average earn less than tier 2 liberal arts schools? And the biggest question that addresses the “Can’t catch Up” hypothesis is—when you add the same graduate degree to all–is the average gap unchanging?</p>
<p>Also, this study doesn’t show that attending UPenn instead of PSU for someone who gets in to both is the better option, but that UPenn grads do better than PSU grads, which . . . duh.</p>
<p>This is the abstract from the original study.</p>
<p>Income disparities arise not only from differences in the level of education but also from differences in status associated with an individual’s degree-granting college or university. While higher ability among those who graduate from elite undergraduate institutions may account for much of the earnings premium associated with elite education, ability should be largely equalized among those who graduate from similarly selective graduate programs. Few graduates of nonselective institutions earn post-baccalaureate degrees from elite institutions, and even when they do, undergraduate institutional prestige continues to influence earnings overall and among those with law, medical, graduate business and doctoral degrees</p>
<p>Except that this study screws things up with the way it tiers. For instances, it has CWRU and Harvard in the same tier, but an MBA from HBS is not the same as an MBA from Case. So if Weatherhead has a greater proportion of undergrads from state schools than HBS, then it would appear that state school grads who get an MBA from a TierI do worse than better private research uni grads who get an MBA from a TierI . . . but it’s not comparing the same thing!</p>
<p>Except that the author didn’t tier by similarly selective grad programs. So that initial assumption is false. Saying that Weatherhead is the same tier as Stern but that Haas is a lower tier is asinine.</p>
<p>The problem is that Vandy’s law and b-schools are both outside the T14/top15, and are worse than Cal’s, UVa’s, and UMich’s. So if the author tiered by conventionally accepted tiers, Vandy would look worse than it does here.</p>
<p>I am not defending the study, but I think before you question the methods used, you should read the research directly. The author did not tier randomly, but used tiers that had been established by the Carnegie Foundation and Barrons. Also the point of the study is not to question the value of one specific college or another, it is to look at the averages and see the trends. The analysis points to the fact that a top graduate degree does not offset the effect (salary wise) of a low-tiered undergraduate degree.</p>
I’m always highly skeptical of earnings comparisons, but I was quite taken by the chart showing where graduates of the different tiers went to graduate school. I think this suggests, as noted above, that it may be a lot harder to go from Cleveland State to a top graduate or professional school than people care to think. It can be done, certainly, but it may not be the best plan if you want to get there.</p>
<p>Yes, but the Carnegie tiers are too crude (unlike what the author says, they don’t really tier by selectivity; Barron’s does, but the author didn’t really use Barron’s tiers), I did read the sections, and I pointed out a methodology flaw that could invalidate the conclusions based on the averages.</p>
<p>@uskoolfish, are you in HS? Hopefully, once you get through college, you’ll be better able to judge empirical research findings and not just rely on what people say.</p>
<p>What makes me think that an ulterior motive is at work is that neither the pure Carnegie or Barrons tiering were used as is. In fact, neither of them divide between private and public research universities as the author does! In fact, even though the author <em>says</em> she uses Carnegie and Barrons tiers, she actually makes up her own system(!) For instance, neither Carnegie or Barrons have UVa and WashU in different tiers, yet this author has them in different tiers.</p>
<p>However, the tiers used in this paper do seem to match up with the apparent beliefs of some posters on these forums, specifically the idea that private is always better than public (although the first and second tiers are reversed for those posters who believe that LACs are better than RUs). So, while the tiers do not make much sense for the purpose of trying to make the conclusion of the study, they do match up with apparently widespread beliefs around here.</p>
<p>Again, correlation vs. causation. Obviously, yes, very few Cleveland St. grads go to HBS, but first, 1. There’s no compelling reason to go to Cleveland St. instead of OSU. 2. Very few OSU grads go to HBS either, but what about OSU grads who got in to Yale?</p>
<p>@ucbalumnus, but the bad tiering can make you draw the wrong conclusions. For instance, a bigger percentage of Cal grads attend elite professional schools than BU grads. Yet this study would lead you to the wrong conclusion if you didn’t know that fact beforehand (as I did).</p>
That’s the question. There have been people who argued that a person who could go to a highly selective school would do just as well if he went to OSU. Personally, I don’t believe this, at least if his goal is to go to HBS. (He may do just as well financially–I’m sure that there are plenty of OSU graduates earning more money than many Harvard graduates). I’d like to see this studied, but my opinion is that having attended a highly selective college increases your chances of being accepted to a highly selective graduate or professional school as compared to a person who entered college with the same qualifications but chose to go to a significantly less selective school. (I’m not talking about somebody who declined Harvard in favor of Wesleyan, or Smith, or Vanderbilt–but the person who declined Harvard for Cleveland State).</p>
<p>I was just saying that the bad tiering is what many posters here would view as the tier they would put colleges in (possibly leading to poor decisions, like ignoring in-state publics that have good academics of their interest at low cost to them – the “anywhere but Rutgers” NJ residents are typical examples).</p>
<p>I think that socioeconomic level plays a role as well. A poor URM or immigrant would benefit far more from Harvard (vs. Cleveland St.) than an upper-middle class kid who’s parents attended Ivies (and thus knew the mores of the upper-middle class and how to get in to that world and also had good schooling in HS), assuming that that kid had the chance to go but turned down Harvard.</p>
<p>BTW, when it comes to grad schools, I’ll say 2 things:
Some grad school degrees are trap degrees that can do you economic harm even though they may be prestigious. For instance, borrowing 6 figures to attend law school at Vandy (and then not getting in to Big Law) or to pursue a humanities PhD at an Ivy (and then not going to work in industry).
It really varies by type of school and field or even particular schools. For instance, for law schools, the LSAT is the key determinant these days; undergrad prestige matters little. With med school, there are some publics that look mostly at numbers and care not a whit where you went for undergrad while the top privates are dominated by undergrads who went to private schools. The majority at top b-schools went to a private undergrad, but there is a decent amount of variation by school. I believe that Booth has double the percentage of state school grads as Wharton. Booth grads also do slightly better than Wharton grads 5 years out, I believe. Or maybe it’s the same. Can’t remember. Meanwhile, for PhD programs, philosophy PhD programs are dominated by alums of top privates while state school grads are prevalent in the STEM fields.</p>
<p>Isn’t it generally the case that a non-top-14 law degree is of dubious value (due to the weak law job market that is very school-prestige-conscious), as is unfunded PhD study?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wouldn’t that be very much based on the strength in major of the various schools? (Though how do Rutgers undergraduate philosophy majors do in PhD admissions?)</p>
<p>Dunno about admissions, but someone looked at where the PhD students at a top (private) philosophy came from over a certain time frame. RU was not well represented (though they were represented). Lots of Ivies & equivalents. Some top publics like Cal.</p>
<p>Also, these days, even the bottom half of the T14 law schools don’t place so well in to Big Law. Really only YHS, CCN, and UPenn (the only one of the lower T14 that places like the T6).</p>
<p>@PurpleTitan
lol–I’m not in high school…been there done that 40 years ago. And what was your point with that? Seriously, though, no need to be insulting. And yes, in my graduate work (not too many years ago) I have read many studies and know how to read data.</p>
<p>I think the way you are reading this study is not how I’m seeing it. You are getting caught in arguing over tiers and not seeing the bigger picture. Certain schools were grouped together based on a number of factors and then average salaries were taken. While some of the grouping may be murky, I still feel that the author comes up with some interesting conclusions that could help parents make certain decisions.</p>
<p>Many people are of the belief that where you go to undergraduate school doesn’t matter. What matters is where you go to graduate school. So the money saved on an undergraduate education is prudent since a bright student can get into a top grad school and be at the same place in the end as the person who went to both a top undergraduate program and graduate program (and paid more money).</p>
<p>So without nit-picking what other schools are in a particular tier, let’s pick a tier 4 school like SUNY Albany, Geneseo or Binghamton. Many, many people in my upper middle class community pick those schools for bright students in an effort to save on their undergraduate education.</p>
<p>Let’s contrast that to a Tier 1 school for undergraduate study like NYU or University of Rochester. Also popular here, and many of the students that went to the tier 4 school were accepted in both, but chose not to go due to the additional cost.</p>
<p>Now a few years later, both kids apply to the top 10 law schools (MBA program/ PHD program). What this study is showing is that a) many of the tier 4 students wont get in with equal variables for gpa and graduate test scores because of the lack of prestige of their undergrad degree and b) that even if they do get in, their salaries at a mid point in their career will be lower (significantly per year) than other grads of the same top 10 law school/ PHD program/MBA program.</p>
<p>The study is not saying that one school is better than another or even whether the same student wouldn’t get an equal educational outcome. (Remember they are taking a standardized test for entrance to a grad program and with high scores, the outcome is still there.) What she is saying is that the prestige factor for the tier 1 and tier 4 institutions are very different and that this factor seems to effect salary and continues to do so over time.</p>
<p>Is it cause and effect? No study can say that.</p>
<p>I love how the rigorous analysis of Dr. Hersch in her paper “Catching up is Hard to Do” is translated by Nancy Haas to be “Why you Can’t Catch Up”. </p>
<p>Some people just don’t get shades of gray. </p>
<p>@uskoolfish: ugh, you didn’t even address my point. And what if Albany grads are more likely to attend Case or BU while Harvard grads are more likely to attend Stanford or Harvard for grad school? Would you not agree that that is not comparing like with like? Note that the author does not say state school and Ivy grads who attend <em>top 10</em> grad schools have different salaries. <em>You</em> made that up (and it’s stuff like that that makes me think that you’re still in HS). The author’s “TierI” actually includes a wide swath of grad schools of widely differing quality. That is a major problem I have with this study.</p>