The theory that colleges are primarily about signaling is something I think a lot of people believe but don't necessarily say. Though sometimes they do: http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/article/justice_scalia_tell... ("'By and large,' Scalia said during the April 24 law school appearance, 'I’m going to be picking from the law schools that basically are the hardest to get into. They admit the best and the brightest, and they may not teach very well, but you can’t make a sow’s ear out of a silk purse. If they come in the best and the brightest, they’re probably going to leave the best and the brightest, OK?'")

Obviously it depends on the field. The value-add of an education in say medicine or engineering, which have a strong lab/practice aspect, is probably greater. Personally, I think in general, people overestimate the actual value-added by education at all levels.

> The theory that colleges are primarily about signaling is something I think a lot of people believe but don't necessarily say. >...I think a lot of people believe but don't necessarily say.

If it's really true that a majority of people believe this but don't say it, then society is consciously making crazy decisions. One implications of the signaling theory is that it recommends ending essentially all public subsidies of higher education, and perhaps even penalizing it. In particular, the entire student loan debt (>$1 trillion, or 7% of US GDP) is a waste.

I didn't say everybody believes it, but I think a lot of people do but generally don't say anything because the idea that education is always a big value-add is a touchstone of public policy.

Interesting. While I had concerns similar to yours, it wasn't pre-existing ability on my mind but rather pre-existing "social class" (whatever that means). I teach at a college whose population is unusually high in first-generation college students, and that lack of family experience with the college process leads to some very well-recognized challenges. (Until I came to this school and started learning about our students, I had no idea just how many basic things about getting into college and succeeding there I learned from my parents' own experience.)

So that makes at least two big confounding factors that could be tough to disentangle from this sort of data. I assume that the authors of the study in question tried to account for it, but I haven't read the original so I can't even begin to judge how well they did.

Would you be willing to elaborate on what some of those lessons were?

Before I start chattering, here's a documentary that really had an impact on me: http://www.firstgenerationfilm.com/ It was heartbreaking to watch the four(?) kids they followed go through this process making what (to an experienced eye) looked like one dreadful misjudgement after another. (There were honestly points where I questioned the ethics of the filmmakers: a kid or family would just be wrong about something basic, and it was going to pretty much crush their plans and their future, and the cameras just kept silently rolling.) And so many of those mistakes were things that my family and I just knew, going in. I'm not sure if the trailer really captures the message, but if you can watch this film somewhere, it's worth it.

Setting aside that film, though, here's one example that sticks out for me: a whole lot of prospective first generation college students don't have anyone to tell them that they probably won't have to pay the "sticker price" tuition. At least at a lot of private colleges, internal grants and scholarships are very common (particularly for students from families with fewer resources): as an extreme case, Harvard charges $0 tuition to families with annual incomes under $65K. But a lot of families just look at the "standard" tuition number there and compare it to the $500 scholarship their kid got from the local Rotary Club, and decide not to bother applying anywhere but the state college down the road.

Or think of all the deadlines involved. When I was applying to colleges, my parents were very much partners in helping me keep track of the pesky bits. Sure, I knew I had to postmark a certain application by Feb. 1 (or whatever). But I had parents who recognized how important things like the FAFSA deadline were, too, and who made sure that both they and I got it done on time. For first generation students, a lot of times the only person they have on hand telling them that "no, really, this FAFSA thing is important" is a guidance councilor with 60 other seniors to keep track of at the same time. And that's just one example: there are plenty of other important things to keep track of, and someone who's been to college before will have a much easier time spotting them buried in other details.

Another issue that comes up is what happens when a student struggles in college. Parents who went to college themselves generally know some folks (or a lot of folks!) who struggled in their first year or two but pulled things together and graduated with a degree that led to a great career (maybe even a career in a field they didn't know existed when they started). First generation kids don't have that: when they struggle (or even just feel like they're struggling, because they're being challenged for the first time), it's not uncommon for their parents to (quite rationally) worry that college just isn't working out and say, "Maybe we should just save our money."

I could go on, but that's a taste of it. None of this is stuff that a student and their family couldn't in principle figure out for themselves, but it adds up to one heck of a barrier. (And it's not just anecdotes: I don't have the links, but there's a lot of research on this.)

This was interesting. Thank you.