A more relevant question is not whether graduates of certain school do or do not make more, but rather, what causes them to do so. And analysis of students who were admitted to such elite schools, but chose to matriculate elsewhere, shows that on the basis of income alone they had very similar success outcomes. Only for very-lower-income students was there a noticeable advantage to attending the elite school, where this metric is concerned.
Thus, the important factor is the "type of student," not the "type of school." This is borne out in their conclusions as well:
"Consistent with the past literature, we find a positive and significant effect of the return to college selectivity during a student’s prime working years in regression models that do not adjust for unobserved student quality for cohorts that entered college in 1976 and 1989 using administrative earnings data from the SSA’s Detailed Earnings Records. Based on these same regression specifications, we also find that the return to selectivity increases over the course of a student’s career. However, after we adjust for unobserved student characteristics, the return to college selectivity falls dramatically. For the 1976 cohort, the return to school-SAT score for the full sample is always indistinguishable from zero when we control for the average SAT score of the colleges that students applied to in order to control for omitted student variables."
Furthermore, I would importantly mention that while these studies are valuable, they do ignore significant changes in the nature of student bodies, labor markets, and educational institutions since the original cohorts are first observed; their findings can't fairly be 100% extrapolated onto current populations.
I could go more into the weeds here, but I think it is not ultimately necessary. Interesting paper, I think less exciting than the works it cites in its introduction, but still quite neat.
"First, the analysis does not pertain to a nationally representative sample of schools, as the sample is derived from the 27 colleges and universities in the C&B dataset, the majority of which are very selective."
The schools are listed in footnotes on pages 8 and 9, and the ones that don't qualify as "elite" aren't exactly shabby either.
A more relevant question is not whether graduates of certain school do or do not make more, but rather, what causes them to do so. And analysis of students who were admitted to such elite schools, but chose to matriculate elsewhere, shows that on the basis of income alone they had very similar success outcomes. Only for very-lower-income students was there a noticeable advantage to attending the elite school, where this metric is concerned.
Thus, the important factor is the "type of student," not the "type of school." This is borne out in their conclusions as well:
"Consistent with the past literature, we find a positive and significant effect of the return to college selectivity during a student’s prime working years in regression models that do not adjust for unobserved student quality for cohorts that entered college in 1976 and 1989 using administrative earnings data from the SSA’s Detailed Earnings Records. Based on these same regression specifications, we also find that the return to selectivity increases over the course of a student’s career. However, after we adjust for unobserved student characteristics, the return to college selectivity falls dramatically. For the 1976 cohort, the return to school-SAT score for the full sample is always indistinguishable from zero when we control for the average SAT score of the colleges that students applied to in order to control for omitted student variables."
Furthermore, I would importantly mention that while these studies are valuable, they do ignore significant changes in the nature of student bodies, labor markets, and educational institutions since the original cohorts are first observed; their findings can't fairly be 100% extrapolated onto current populations.
I could go more into the weeds here, but I think it is not ultimately necessary. Interesting paper, I think less exciting than the works it cites in its introduction, but still quite neat.
TL;DR = Schools don't matter; students do.