11–20 of 111 posts
It says "return on degree", so is the income measured relatively to what they spent on the degree? If so, it obviously depends still very much on where you study, as top schools cost much more.
As if future income is the only "return on investment" in an education... smh
If they used a curve fit they'd have seen the line curves up as Admission rate decreases.
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.
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.
Line of best fit is wrong and a terrible approximation here. If they used a curve fit they'd have seen the line curves up as Admission rate decreases.
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'm of the opinion that while school calibur might be able to get you interviews and jobs a lot of times, it's selecting for mediocrity since it doesn't go for professional accomplishments...and thus avoids hiring high performers, who generally want to work with other high performers.
As if future income is the only "return on investment" in an education... smh
Future income is the primary reason people pursue higher education. We tell people from the time they hit middle school that they need to be preparing for college so they can get a good (i.e. high paying) job.
I'm not claiming that I had hifalutin ideals; I knew that money was important, but I had this (perhaps naive) idea that if I became an excellent practitioner in whatever I did the money would follow.
I just wasn't prepared to hear "I'm just here to get a good job" from most of my peers. Some, I would expect, but not most.
Line of best fit is wrong and a terrible approximation here. If they used a curve fit they'd have seen the line curves up as Admission rate decreases.
Granted, "just use a curve fit" hits a different statistical problem. (overfitting)