[beforeolives]

> beyond a reasonable doubt the school itself has improved the persons educational prospects.

How many people do genuinely care about this? People go to top schools in order to improve their life prospects, not necessarily to get the best education (but they get that too anyway).

[bumby]

I believe there’s research that shows elite schools do not improve ones life prospects, with the exception of those from lower income households. They looked at those who were accepted to elite schools and went to “lesser” schools. Those people did not have worse outcomes, indicating the elite schools are selecting those who would have done well regardless. I do think this makes an interesting case for admitting more lower income students for the networking effect.

(I’ll see if I can dig up the research later when I have more time and link to it).

Edit:

"we find that students who attended more selective colleges earned about the same as students of seemingly comparable ability who attended less selective schools. Children from low-income families, however, earned more if they attended selective colleges."

https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/117/4/1491/187...

[bko]

It appears the opposite may be true

> But it turns out that the proportional increase for those who grew up poor is much less than for those who did not. College graduates from families with an income below 185 percent of the federal poverty level (the eligibility threshold for the federal assisted lunch program) earn 91 percent more over their careers than high school graduates from the same income group. By comparison, college graduates from families with incomes above 185 percent of the FPL earned 162 percent more over their careers (between the ages of 25 and 62) than those with just a high school diploma:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2016/02...

[candybar]

This isn't measuring the same thing though - a college degree vs a high-school degree is a very different question than a college degree from an elite school vs a college degree from a slightly less elite, but still very good school.

This also appears to lack any kind of control, whereas the other study tried to control for the student's abilities.

[andy9775]

Are you accounting for family connections? High income families tend to have connections which can help. If your parents are good friends with a lawyer at a top law firm you no longer have to apply on your own merit. Poor families lack these connections and students have to apply on their own. Something to consider.

[dmarchand90]

It's behind a soft paywall but this article describes what you're saying very nicely. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/does-it-ma...

Apparently college is almost useless for rich white guys but it's progressively more useful if you're not rich, white, or a guy.

[endisneigh]

I agree with you. I went to a top school in order to improve my life prospects as well.

However as a civilization it's important that a school like the one I'm hypothesizing exists because selection bias is not really sustainable, nor does it help those who genuinely want to improve but are otherwise not particularly able.

I also imagine if a "performance school" actually existed its influence would extend far beyond traditional education. It would prove that there's some means in which people can learn optimally. Presumably that mechanism would spread to all industries and we all would be better for it.

[jfengel]

I'm not sure what kind of data you would use to drive it. A lot of the most important aspects of education aren't readily measurable: the ability to write, the network connections you make (to fellow students, professors, alumni, donors, etc), capacity to work in teams, and so on. You risk the same things you get with tech firms using leetcode and puzzles to select... well, to select those who are good at leetcode and puzzles.

You can measure it in terms of career success, but even there it's very hard to deal with the selection bias. Those who succeed are those who succeed.

I'm a big fan of Signum University, which is an online-only university dedicated to the soft skills that have to be taught personally, rather than a MOOC. It can't develop connections like Harvard and Stanford but it can develop those skills that make the hard-to-measure differences between those who succeed and those who are merely very good at taking tests. It remains, however, impossible to factor out those connections, which seem to make the biggest difference.

[endisneigh]

I’m not sure what having a network has to do with being educated.

[jfengel]

I'm saying I'm not sure how you'd measure "educated". Many subjects aren't well suited to testing, and even for those that are, the tests don't often correlate all that well to problem-solving ability, insight, or other valuable skills.

You can measure wealth, but I'm suggesting that wealth outcomes has more to do with your life circumstances than with how much knowledge you acquire in school (by whatever mechanism you would measure that).

[bumby]

A network can have significant impact on your "life prospects" though, which is what you indicated in your previous post was one of your considerations for choosing a school.

[analog31]

I think what people have a generic desire for education and life prospects -- the two are not mutually exclusive -- and then choose the school that does both for them within parameters such as acceptance, prestige, and cost.

[tw8345]

Yeah the best schools education wise are not the best schools for like prospects. Thats just how it is and most folks dont care about the education bit