Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It Depends What You Study, Not Where

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 111 posts

Re: It Depends What You Study, Not Where

#91

Post by koluft »

_asummers wrote: post #18

The big thing for me with top schools is the "baseline quality of the degree". I didn't go to a top school, but spent my time studying everything math and CS related I could, and managed to get an awesome education. At the same time, I am fully cognizant of the fact that peers who were less driven likely were more easily able to skate by, for the most part. So when a resume comes across my desk from a guy from my alm…

The hardest part of an Ivy League degree is getting in. No guarantee of education.

Re: It Depends What You Study, Not Where

#92

Post by koluft »

nostrademons wrote: post #82
dilemma wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the most common grade at Harvard is A or some variation thereof. See the Carol Joyce Oates interview.

It's possibly gone up since I was college-aged; this was from when I was living in Boston and hanging around a bunch of Harvard students in 06-07.

The median course grade at Harvard has been A- for over 20 years.

It's inflated, but then again, how much Harvard coursework mastery is actually necessary for your job?

Re: It Depends What You Study, Not Where

#93

Post by koluft »

jldugger wrote: post #76
tdaltonc wrote: post #43

Neither majors nor schools are randomly assigned to students, so I don't think that there's actually much to take away from this.

Actually, the chart shows a pretty damning story for selection bias: despite all the selectivity of schools, there's no sign of improvement in returns for more selective engineering schools. It makes a bit of intuitive sense: any MIT/CMU/Stanford/etc premium on degrees would be capped by management salary structure, since fresh grads don't typically earn more than their boss. It's possible that a linear fit is not a…

How many CS grads from Ohio state are getting $150k start in SV it NY? To get nothing of the growth 10 years later

Re: It Depends What You Study, Not Where

#94

Post by Spooky23 »

koluft wrote: post #92
nostrademons wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possibly gone up since I was college-aged; this was from when I was living in Boston and hanging around a bunch of Harvard students in 06-07.

The median course grade at Harvard has been A- for over 20 years. It's inflated, but then again, how much Harvard coursework mastery is actually necessary for your job?

In the state school I went to in the 90s, they were acolytes of the bell curve.

Mastery or not, if your score bumped you out of the curve, you were getting a B.

Friends in Ivy League schools would get As or incompletes.

Re: It Depends What You Study, Not Where

#95

Post by NotSammyHagar »

Unbeliever69 wrote: post #4

For most people I agree. However, as someone who has graduated from a top school (U. of Michigan), I can't tell you how many times my credentials have got me both interviews and jobs. Where you go to school CAN make a big difference, but it depends on the school, the person, and the field of study.

I don't mean to be mean, and I assume you mean CS, and I went to a no name school in the south myself, but having worked for 20 years at google, microsoft, amazon, and startups, I don't think of U of Mich as a top school. The easy top list in CS is berkley, cmu, stanford, maybe cal tech. People say their school is this or that, but 2nd and 3rd tier schools just don't matter at all. Maybe for your first job in that state? It's all about what you can do, your capabilities, your experience, and your interview skill too. Is U Mich is the top 20 or something?

I definitely didn't go to a top school, but I am amazed at people who say their school was a top school or almost top school. I am just saying as someone who interviews people every week: your school doesn't matter to me - it is just what you have done in your career, and what you can do now.

Re: It Depends What You Study, Not Where

#96

Post by aianus »

Chronic51 wrote: post #78
tdaltonc wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because there is a big selection bias in university education, it's hard to say that Harvard caused someones income to go up using your math. I prefer this post from last year which tries to calculate value-added. http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/10/value-u...

Why does selection bias even matter? If you go to Harvard, you will make more than had you gone to a boring state school. Period. Is there selection bias? Yes. Does it change the fact the Harvard kid is wildly successful? No.

Because if the effects are due to selection bias, and you've been accepted to both Harvard and State School, you should pick State and earn an even higher return.

If it's not selection bias, then you can conclude Harvard causes success and you should go there.

Re: It Depends What You Study, Not Where

#97

Post by lliiffee »

jeremynixon wrote: post #22
Q6T46nT668w6i3m wrote: post #5

I don't know this survey. But I've read similar and recently published surveys on the subject. Notably, if you stratified the sample to remove computer science students the conclusion is reversed.

I (and I'm sure, others) would absolutely love to see a link or resource for this, could someone provide one?

It seems unlikely-- in order to be true, computer science majors would need to actually have higher income with degrees from less competitive schools.

Re: It Depends What You Study, Not Where

#98

Post by jldugger »

koluft wrote: post #93
jldugger wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, the chart shows a pretty damning story for selection bias: despite all the selectivity of schools, there's no sign of improvement in returns for more selective engineering schools. It makes a bit of intuitive sense: any MIT/CMU/Stanford/etc premium on degrees would be capped by management salary structure, since fresh grads don't typically earn more than their boss. It's possible that a linear fit is not a…

How many CS grads from Ohio state are getting $150k start in SV it NY? To get nothing of the growth 10 years later

I don't have linkedin pro. How many?

Re: It Depends What You Study, Not Where

#99

Post by arjie »

The figures described seem to argue the opposite of the headline. If you get a 12% return on the cost of your education regardless of where you go, then that means that more expensive colleges are providing a commensurate increase in returns.

The fact that they can maintain 12% return is fantastic, and you should be spending every last cent you can afford on that. After all, if I offered you a 12 cents a year if you give me a dollar today, and someone else offered you $12000 a year if you give them $100k this year, you'd probably take the latter.

And this is not even counting the fixed cost of the time you spend going to university. The cheap and the expensive both charge you the same in time. But the latter gives you a phenomenally higher return on that time.

Re: It Depends What You Study, Not Where

#100

Post by lstamour »

enraged_camel wrote: post #66
rishubhav wrote: post #56

When will journalists finally learn that Payscale is absolutely useless for this kind of analysis? The Payscale sample is solely graduates who never got a grad degree. All this data suggests is that STEM majors are more likely to get high-paying jobs with only their undergrad degrees. It completely omits the many humanities/arts majors who go on to graduate study and thence to perfectly lucrative careers.

>>It completely omits the many humanities/arts majors who go on to graduate study and thence to perfectly lucrative careers. Do you have any sources for this?

Their website seems structured that way, and also seems to have very few samples in Canada at least... It's better than nothing, but it wasn't all that convincing for me personally.
Post reply on HN