I got the grades for ivy league but ended up choosing a lower ranked university for full ride. Class sizes were small, people were less egotistical and professors remembered you. I ended up working with the same Ivy league folks who have student loans to pay off.
First, I love your RUclips name haha...thank you for sharing, and I found a similar result. I personally looked heavily into Columbia, but ended up graduating from Regis in Denver (was about $200k less after scholarships/aid for me).
RPI was the best school that would take me, and with a good financial aid package. Easy to get into, hard as balls to stay at. What’s funny is that none of the people I knew in high school could even tell you what RPI was. Still think it was the right choice for me.
Im.not sure that's entirely the case. The real answer is that the wealth distribution has been taken to an extreme, and the people paying the taxes aren't getting the benefits they once saw, while.the wealthy do. This of this one example: states take in tax revenues, then build highway from suburbs to downtown, to support the very businesses the wealthy generally own, without having to give raises to afford to live close, while simultaneously requiring many in the middle class to spend hours a day in their car. It's a structural issue, and a tragedy of the commons to inverse it but the system needs to break or improve. This is all while govt grows quicker than the public sector creating a negative feedback loop of more costs for the public sector, with a still extremely inefficient govt to begin with.
@@MeJonTheDon The answer is make the people benefiting pay the taxes. We know exactly how much everyone benefit(ted)(s) from the current system: what wealth has been distributed to them. Tax in direct proportion to wealth. Tax (at least) 100% of unearned wealth. Like inheritance, monopoly rents, fraud, etc.
I'm a college counselor that runs a counseling company and I will always sub and like a video that points out just how much BS there is in college rankings and higher education in general. And I think you nailed it beautifully. It's the same reason I hate so many of the companies in my industry. When you charge $20k a student, of course you're going to get the super rich elite who've got all the advantages and can get into Ivy-league schools. And then those companies act like they were why they got in.
Great choice of paper. I had to read the Dale Krueger paper and explain it to an economics class as the paper I selected this spring. This is in fact considered the key paper on this topic. I would mention that the data it uses is very old, at least 20 years old if not more. The impact might be slowly increasing of going to a top school because network effects are growing in all fields as breaking into just about any field is becoming more competitive. Also, most of the paper is secondary tests. Notable exceptions were found for certain subgroups, such as black and Hispanic students and those from less-educated families. For these groups, the return to college selectivity remained significant even after adjusting for unobserved student characteristics. Also I think for poor families, getting a big discount/full ride changes the equation.
I won valedictorian- come from a modest childhood financially speaking. Ended up going to a large state school with a party reputation. Now, I’m competing and working with students from the best universities in the country. School doesn’t matter- network and effort matters
88% of people CAN (but probably aren't) better than you AVERAGE driver. it depends how bad that other 12% are and what the metrics are. I think what you mean is 88% can't be great than the MEDIAN because that explicitly means 50% mark, whereas AVERAGE can be skewed by extremes (i.e. the avegerage person may make a alot of money, but thats just becuase the extremely wealthy make so many times the money of most people, where the median and mean are very different numbers)
Interesting that identical students at different schools (ie. Ivy vs. respectable public school) have zero difference in income. I wouldn't have guessed that not because of one school being better than another regarding pure academics, but rather environment. By nature, you are going to be around other ambitious students at an Ivy whereas at a state school the average student isn't going to be as driven. You are a product of the people around you.
I spend about 12 minutes in my other video talking about “environment” as it relates to college choice…you should check out the other two I have on choosing a college.
I think what you're failing to mention regarding professor salary and ratio is the reputation of these professors. Yes, a lot of the highly paid ones are not good teachers or even interested in teaching (you probably will never meet them because their TA is doing everything while they're helping design a new satellite for NASA). So, what's the benefit of this from a student's perspective? Well, when those professors are looking for research assistants and such you could be asked. Obviously, there are caveats to that (and you can argue that a small student ratio gives you a better chance of standing out). You're definitely right that cream rises to the top in life if you're in a certain field and you've got a certain kind of ambition, those schools could pay off in dividends.
Hi Michael, good video! I would like to open a friendly discussion here about the content of the video Overall I agree with the message/idea of the video. But there are some point I tend to disagree with. When you talk about the study that control a group of students with the "Avg. SAT score of schools applied to" Doesn't it means that this group of students applied for the same "tier" of college (in terms of selectiveness), and a college from this tier is not that different from another college from the same tier? Ex. 2 students, same background, applied to "top" colleges, went to different colleges, both receive +- the same after graduate Same for "mid" tier colleges And for this reason you see no different in earnings between different students Or am I wrong about this study? Maybe I missed something But overall, your point is super valid!
With all due respect, you are talking about college sports. Malcolm Gladwell had a 2 part [or more?] podcast of the impact of college choice and success with *very* different conclusions.
@@jacobbegis4883 - With all due respect, this is part one and, in part two, he talks about Malcom Gladwell and replies to it in detail. I was spot on before seeing part 2.
Fairly certain lower economic status students get a larger boost from Ivies. This is probably because it changes who they associate with to people of higher status, whereas if you are high in economic status originally you already associate with other high status people.
I think college choice has a huge impact on potential earnings. The best employers who pay the most hire from the best colleges. You could be a really smart person who went to a lower ranked school to save money but these employers care nothing about that. They see the school you went to and automatically judge you based on that.
Think it depends on a lot of factors. If you are trying to make it big on Wall St, college choice probably matters quite a bit. However, in something like computer science where it is a lot easier to quantify skill, college choice doesn't matter as much.
@@CoHawk73I know I'm a bit late to this conversation, but my dad went to USF and is certainly not the most academically inclined man of all time. Despite that he worked hard and got a degree in something he enjoyed. Now he makes ~80k a year through hard work and smart decisions. Colleges aren't the end-all-be-all. My aunt went to SMU and had terrible grades. Now she makes 150k+ a year as head of marketing for VRBO. Sure a good college can help, but employers see the person and the hard work above all else.
@@twinkiesrdabest5971 ok grades don’t really matter that much in college most employers won’t even ask for your gpa.SMU is a very good which is why your aunt makes almost 2x your dad. Also your dad makes 80k which is pretty good but I have friends that went to good schools, majored in marketable degrees that make more than that right out of college. And could you go to a lower ranked school and eventually become successful of course, but you are fighting an uphill battle.
There's a logical fallacy in your argument. Yes, more Duke basketball players end up in the NBA because Duke gets the pick of the crop (Alabama football has the same effect). But from the player's perspective, the contributing factors to getting into the NBA include being part of a winning team, playing with better players making them better, good coaching being part of a winning culture, having more high profile opportunities to impress scouts because of deep runs in the ACC and March Madness tournaments. Going to Duke adds value for them, and makes them better players. In college, your final control (average SAT scores of colleges applied to) risks "controlling out" the value of those schools - the peer network after graduation, being part of a hard working, talented, and ambitious crop of students, all pushing each other to do better. In the same way that playing with more talented players forces talented players to work harder to make the team and stand out, going to school with more talented students forces you to work harder, rather than coasting through on talent. I'm not arguing that the elite schools are worth the price, only that the logic of your argument does not quite support that if the same student goes to UMass Amherst instead of Harvard at 18 that they will do just as well after graduation at 22.
I agree with you, but at the same time, it's not the team that's doing this for them, its the environment around it. Duke gets the best players, consequently making deep runs and winning more games, but if a D2 or low D1 team gets the opportunity to have a team full of talented, NBA material players, the results wouldn't change much, that's what I got from the video
@@pedrohenrique-bx4xwbut... They don't get the opportunity. So, at an individual person level, the best solution is to go to the school that you already know will have to best players.
This makes some sense, but not if you are sidelined becuase where you may be say 6th in line for a 5 man roster, but 1st at the next school which actually gives you exposure and room to play and learn, as opposed to being on the bench and forgotten. This is in and of itself a fallacy smart people/players and which is why it is not a winner take all system, becuase otherwise every player would want to be in the back of the line at said top school/company/etc, leading to only 1 team/company/etc and therefore nobody to compete against or sell to
I've never seen these college acceptance videos "everyone has seen." Got to be careful of assumptions around audiences. More likely than not, people arent all sitting on tik tok and instagram (or even have one)
I got the grades for ivy league but ended up choosing a lower ranked university for full ride. Class sizes were small, people were less egotistical and professors remembered you. I ended up working with the same Ivy league folks who have student loans to pay off.
First, I love your RUclips name haha...thank you for sharing, and I found a similar result. I personally looked heavily into Columbia, but ended up graduating from Regis in Denver (was about $200k less after scholarships/aid for me).
RPI was the best school that would take me, and with a good financial aid package. Easy to get into, hard as balls to stay at. What’s funny is that none of the people I knew in high school could even tell you what RPI was. Still think it was the right choice for me.
Rankings are reinforced by the same institutions that sit at the top of them. Great video
thank you!
More generally, hierarchies are reinforced by the same entities that benefit from them.
It's actually insane how high quality these videos are in comparison to the subscriber count
Thanks Josh! Appreciate it.
I love your videos man dont stop uploading because you truly have something special here.
bro was right
This is also what's going on with people who rail against taxes. They're ignoring the benefits side of the ROI equation.
Im.not sure that's entirely the case. The real answer is that the wealth distribution has been taken to an extreme, and the people paying the taxes aren't getting the benefits they once saw, while.the wealthy do. This of this one example: states take in tax revenues, then build highway from suburbs to downtown, to support the very businesses the wealthy generally own, without having to give raises to afford to live close, while simultaneously requiring many in the middle class to spend hours a day in their car. It's a structural issue, and a tragedy of the commons to inverse it but the system needs to break or improve.
This is all while govt grows quicker than the public sector creating a negative feedback loop of more costs for the public sector, with a still extremely inefficient govt to begin with.
@@MeJonTheDon The answer is make the people benefiting pay the taxes. We know exactly how much everyone benefit(ted)(s) from the current system: what wealth has been distributed to them. Tax in direct proportion to wealth. Tax (at least) 100% of unearned wealth. Like inheritance, monopoly rents, fraud, etc.
Just shows how "Does where you go to college matter?" is subtly a very different question than "Does where you choose to go to college matter?"
First time viewer here. It's not the college you go to, it is the hard work you put in. Good lesson.
I'm a college counselor that runs a counseling company and I will always sub and like a video that points out just how much BS there is in college rankings and higher education in general. And I think you nailed it beautifully. It's the same reason I hate so many of the companies in my industry. When you charge $20k a student, of course you're going to get the super rich elite who've got all the advantages and can get into Ivy-league schools. And then those companies act like they were why they got in.
Great content! keep the work up these are some high quality videos
Great choice of paper. I had to read the Dale Krueger paper and explain it to an economics class as the paper I selected this spring.
This is in fact considered the key paper on this topic. I would mention that the data it uses is very old, at least 20 years old if not more. The impact might be slowly increasing of going to a top school because network effects are growing in all fields as breaking into just about any field is becoming more competitive.
Also, most of the paper is secondary tests. Notable exceptions were found for certain subgroups, such as black and Hispanic students and those from less-educated families. For these groups, the return to college selectivity remained significant even after adjusting for unobserved student characteristics. Also I think for poor families, getting a big discount/full ride changes the equation.
Such a well produced and intriguing channel, keep it up!
Thank you!
I won valedictorian- come from a modest childhood financially speaking. Ended up going to a large state school with a party reputation. Now, I’m competing and working with students from the best universities in the country. School doesn’t matter- network and effort matters
Great video mike❤️... I genuinely believe that you deserve more subscribers.
9:05 LMAO get out of the restricted area and TAKE THE CHARGE! 😅😂
88% of people CAN (but probably aren't) better than you AVERAGE driver. it depends how bad that other 12% are and what the metrics are.
I think what you mean is 88% can't be great than the MEDIAN because that explicitly means 50% mark, whereas AVERAGE can be skewed by extremes (i.e. the avegerage person may make a alot of money, but thats just becuase the extremely wealthy make so many times the money of most people, where the median and mean are very different numbers)
Interesting that identical students at different schools (ie. Ivy vs. respectable public school) have zero difference in income. I wouldn't have guessed that not because of one school being better than another regarding pure academics, but rather environment. By nature, you are going to be around other ambitious students at an Ivy whereas at a state school the average student isn't going to be as driven. You are a product of the people around you.
I spend about 12 minutes in my other video talking about “environment” as it relates to college choice…you should check out the other two I have on choosing a college.
I come for the data and stay for the narrative!
great video! well done
Thank you!
I think what you're failing to mention regarding professor salary and ratio is the reputation of these professors. Yes, a lot of the highly paid ones are not good teachers or even interested in teaching (you probably will never meet them because their TA is doing everything while they're helping design a new satellite for NASA).
So, what's the benefit of this from a student's perspective? Well, when those professors are looking for research assistants and such you could be asked.
Obviously, there are caveats to that (and you can argue that a small student ratio gives you a better chance of standing out). You're definitely right that cream rises to the top in life if you're in a certain field and you've got a certain kind of ambition, those schools could pay off in dividends.
Great video!! Subscribing now
Hi Michael, good video!
I would like to open a friendly discussion here about the content of the video
Overall I agree with the message/idea of the video. But there are some point I tend to disagree with.
When you talk about the study that control a group of students with the "Avg. SAT score of schools applied to"
Doesn't it means that this group of students applied for the same "tier" of college (in terms of selectiveness), and a college from this tier is not that different from another college from the same tier?
Ex. 2 students, same background, applied to "top" colleges, went to different colleges, both receive +- the same after graduate
Same for "mid" tier colleges
And for this reason you see no different in earnings between different students
Or am I wrong about this study? Maybe I missed something
But overall, your point is super valid!
Well spoken🥂
Goodness is this starting to show these days
With all due respect, you are talking about college sports. Malcolm Gladwell had a 2 part [or more?] podcast of the impact of college choice and success with *very* different conclusions.
The college sports example was meant to be an absurd case where obviously the college doesn't matter that much.
@@jacobbegis4883 - With all due respect, this is part one and, in part two, he talks about Malcom Gladwell and replies to it in detail. I was spot on before seeing part 2.
Interesting study…
Definitely!
Wendell Moore Jr, not Wendall Carter Jr from duke
I wonder how the conclusions drawn in this video would change when comparing students from different socioeconomic backgrounds
Fairly certain lower economic status students get a larger boost from Ivies. This is probably because it changes who they associate with to people of higher status, whereas if you are high in economic status originally you already associate with other high status people.
Can we see the difference between different fields? Lawyers in particular seem like they would be interesting or engineers that went to MIT.
I know plenty of people that got degrees at mediocre universities that make more than people that got the same degrees and attended t20 institutions
Interesting study. What's the name of the paper?
Here is the link to one of Krueger/Dale's papers - www.nber.org/papers/w7322
I think college choice has a huge impact on potential earnings. The best employers who pay the most hire from the best colleges. You could be a really smart person who went to a lower ranked school to save money but these employers care nothing about that. They see the school you went to and automatically judge you based on that.
Yea if you’re looking to make 300k plus then you should definitely go to a college that employers want to see
Think it depends on a lot of factors. If you are trying to make it big on Wall St, college choice probably matters quite a bit. However, in something like computer science where it is a lot easier to quantify skill, college choice doesn't matter as much.
@@Willy72070 300k? Bro if you want a job that pays at least 70k you need to go to an elite school.
@@CoHawk73I know I'm a bit late to this conversation, but my dad went to USF and is certainly not the most academically inclined man of all time. Despite that he worked hard and got a degree in something he enjoyed. Now he makes ~80k a year through hard work and smart decisions. Colleges aren't the end-all-be-all. My aunt went to SMU and had terrible grades. Now she makes 150k+ a year as head of marketing for VRBO. Sure a good college can help, but employers see the person and the hard work above all else.
@@twinkiesrdabest5971 ok grades don’t really matter that much in college most employers won’t even ask for your gpa.SMU is a very good which is why your aunt makes almost 2x your dad. Also your dad makes 80k which is pretty good but I have friends that went to good schools, majored in marketable degrees that make more than that right out of college. And could you go to a lower ranked school and eventually become successful of course, but you are fighting an uphill battle.
There's a logical fallacy in your argument. Yes, more Duke basketball players end up in the NBA because Duke gets the pick of the crop (Alabama football has the same effect). But from the player's perspective, the contributing factors to getting into the NBA include being part of a winning team, playing with better players making them better, good coaching being part of a winning culture, having more high profile opportunities to impress scouts because of deep runs in the ACC and March Madness tournaments. Going to Duke adds value for them, and makes them better players. In college, your final control (average SAT scores of colleges applied to) risks "controlling out" the value of those schools - the peer network after graduation, being part of a hard working, talented, and ambitious crop of students, all pushing each other to do better. In the same way that playing with more talented players forces talented players to work harder to make the team and stand out, going to school with more talented students forces you to work harder, rather than coasting through on talent. I'm not arguing that the elite schools are worth the price, only that the logic of your argument does not quite support that if the same student goes to UMass Amherst instead of Harvard at 18 that they will do just as well after graduation at 22.
I agree with you, but at the same time, it's not the team that's doing this for them, its the environment around it. Duke gets the best players, consequently making deep runs and winning more games, but if a D2 or low D1 team gets the opportunity to have a team full of talented, NBA material players, the results wouldn't change much, that's what I got from the video
@@pedrohenrique-bx4xwbut... They don't get the opportunity. So, at an individual person level, the best solution is to go to the school that you already know will have to best players.
@4bidden1 that's literally exactly what i said
@4bidden1 yeah, if a D2 team got really good players from D1 teams their results wouldn’t change much, cause in both cases they would be good teams
This makes some sense, but not if you are sidelined becuase where you may be say 6th in line for a 5 man roster, but 1st at the next school which actually gives you exposure and room to play and learn, as opposed to being on the bench and forgotten. This is in and of itself a fallacy smart people/players and which is why it is not a winner take all system, becuase otherwise every player would want to be in the back of the line at said top school/company/etc, leading to only 1 team/company/etc and therefore nobody to compete against or sell to
gs
FREE COLLEGE FOR ALL NOW!! 😤😤
CANCEL ALL STUDENT DEBT!!!!
I've never seen these college acceptance videos "everyone has seen." Got to be careful of assumptions around audiences. More likely than not, people arent all sitting on tik tok and instagram (or even have one)