Current statistics on average salaries for those schools in EECS disciplines compared to industry average seems to suggest that the expense is plenty justified. Will this offering be able to compete at all in the value delivered dimension? It seems like comparing apples and oranges.
do you have a source for that?
also keep in mind that those schools are starting with more capable students going in
CMU Software Engineers - $95,512 http://www.payscale.com/research/US/School=Carnegie_Mellon_U...
MIT - $95,392 http://www.payscale.com/research/US/School=Massachusetts_Ins...
Stanford - $111,324 http://www.payscale.com/research/US/School=Stanford_Universi...
+$20K a year for ~$30K in loans is a no brainer.
I only have experience with what CMU will quote a family with modestly upper middle class means, about 10 years ago, but I was unimpressed
the difference back then between them and state school was multiples more than 30K over 4 years
2 things about that 20K difference
1) how much of the can be attributed to better students starting off at those schools
2) I'm not convinced that the 20K a year difference persists over time, the state school engineer who becomes professionally accomplished will get raises, the elite school engineer who rests on their laurels won't
what matters is the individual, not the school
The average net price of an MIT education (4 years) in 2012-2013 was $40K: http://web.mit.edu/facts/tuition.html
You can't make these numbers not add up to demonstrating the value of a high quality education unless you speculate that education has nearly 0 value and simply attracts inherently brilliant and valuable people. You then have to further hypothesize that there is negligible benefit to being surrounded by such people.
Constructing such a hypothesis without evidence is clearly grasping at air.
As far as evidence, how would one prove that the value of the brand is more important than the education itself? From what I understand, many employers give nearly as much weight to attending either of those schools (and others) as they do actual graduation from them. At best it's difficult to say whether it's the education, the actual understanding and knowledge gained from these institutions, or merely being associated with them that indicates future economic value.
"We find that the return to college selectivity is sizeable for both cohorts in regression models that control for variables commonly observed by researchers, such as student high school GPA and SAT scores. However, when we adjust for unobserved student ability by controlling for the average SAT score of the colleges that students applied to, our estimates of the return to college selectivity fall substantially and are generally indistinguishable from zero. There were notable exceptions for certain subgroups. For black and Hispanic students and for students who come from less-educated families (in terms of their parents' education), the estimates of the return to college selectivity remain large, even in models that adjust for unobserved student characteristics. "
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2004/10/education...
"The researchers Alan Krueger and Stacy Berg Dale began investigating this question, and in 1999 produced a study that dropped a bomb on the notion of elite-college attendance as essential to success later in life. Krueger, a Princeton economist, and Dale, affiliated with the Andrew Mellon Foundation, began by comparing students who entered Ivy League and similar schools in 1976 with students who entered less prestigious colleges the same year. They found, for instance, that by 1995 Yale graduates were earning 30 percent more than Tulane graduates, which seemed to support the assumption that attending an elite college smoothes one's path in life.
But maybe the kids who got into Yale were simply more talented or hardworking than those who got into Tulane. To adjust for this, Krueger and Dale studied what happened to students who were accepted at an Ivy or a similar institution, but chose instead to attend a less sexy, "moderately selective" school. It turned out that such students had, on average, the same income twenty years later as graduates of the elite colleges. Krueger and Dale found that for students bright enough to win admission to a top school, later income "varied little, no matter which type of college they attended." In other words, the student, not the school, was responsible for the success.
Research does find an unmistakable advantage to getting a bachelor's degree. In 2002, according to Census Bureau figures, the mean income of college graduates was almost double that of those holding only high school diplomas. Trends in the knowledge-based economy suggest that college gets more valuable every year. For those graduating from high school today and in the near future, failure to attend at least some college may mean a McJobs existence for all but the most talented or unconventional.
But, as Krueger has written, "that you go to college is more important than where you go." The advantages conferred by the most selective schools may be overstated."
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/10/10/getting-in
"But let’s look at those who got into both types of schools, some of whom chose Penn and some of whom chose Penn State. Within that set it doesn’t seem to matter whether you go to the more selective school. Now, you would think that the more ambitious student is the one who would choose to go to Penn, and the ones choosing to go to Penn State might be a little less confident in their abilities or have a little lower family income, and both of those factors would point to people doing worse later on. But they don’t.”
Krueger says that there is one exception to this. Students from the very lowest economic strata do seem to benefit from going to an Ivy. For most students, though, the general rule seems to be that if you are a hardworking and intelligent person you’ll end up doing well regardless of where you went to school. You’ll make good contacts at Penn. But Penn State is big enough and diverse enough that you can make good contacts there, too. Having Penn on your résumé opens doors. But if you were good enough to get into Penn you’re good enough that those doors will open for you anyway. “I can see why families are really concerned about this,” Krueger went on. “The average graduate from a top school is making nearly a hundred and twenty thousand dollars a year, the average graduate from a moderately selective school is making ninety thousand dollars. That’s an enormous difference, and I can see why parents would fight to get their kids into the better school. But I think they are just assigning to the school a lot of what the student is bringing with him to the school.”
- ability to prove worth outside an education credential
- access to educational materials outside a couple elite schools
- ability to find the relevent people to network with
suggests that a software engineer today has it easier, not harder to overcome non elite credential than the people measured in the qouted study
-------------------------------------------------------
that said, the MIT average numbers qouted above seem fine, if someone where to tell me they could attend MIT for less than 50K for the whole 4 years, I would say that sounds like a pretty good deal
its encouraging to me that the top couple universities seem compelled to compete on value, even if that happens in what appears to me to be a fairly price discriminatory manner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination )
hopefully the trend spreads and many many more college compete on value as well
what happens to non-dischargable debt if they don't do well?