Running Faja wrote:
To g4asdsdds:
If you'd agree that more selective schools typically cost more money than less selective schools, then that is exactly what the study suggests (suggesting that going to Skidmore, which is more expensive yet less selective than Harvard, is clearly an anomoly).
So let's not digress: The study suggests that if you have a child that could get into an Ivy, and they turn it down for a less selective school (=less expensive school) it will probably have no impact on their lifetime earnings...so you are not "short-changing" your child if you choose this approach.
Now back to the Jets....
You are clearly completely misunderstanding the study. TUITION COST IS CORRELLATED WITH LATER WAGE EARNINGS! This means NO MATTER WHAT ELSE, the more expensive the school, the MORE MONEY YOU WILL MAKE later in life. What the study says is that selectivity, BY ITSELF (i.e. NOT taking cost differences into account) does NOT affect wage earnings.
So if you compare two schools that cost the same amount of money (say two liberal arts colleges with $50,000 tuition +room/board), THEN selectivity has NO effect on wage earnings. But if you compare two equally selective schools with a difference in cost (i.e. a liberal arts college at $50,000 vs. a good state school at $25,000), then there IS a SIGNIFICANT benefit by attending the MORE COSTLY school.
It makes sense—it's like investment in R&D in a business. More money in now means more payoff later. But anyways, you are making the wrong conclusions from this study (hope you weren't a science major). The point is, selectivity alone does not affect later wages, but tuition cost DOES, and so if you are telling your kid to go to a cheaper school (independent of whether it is more or less selective!) you ARE short-changing him or her if they have the opportunity to go to a more expensive school.