= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Psychohistorian comments on Efficient prestige hypothesis - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (35)
I actually doubt this is true. Specifically, for the case of private university tuition. Suppose people actually sat down and calculated their lifetime expected income, given their admissions metrics, and their parents/the state said, "Here's tuition at a private university. Go where you want and keep the change." Then, they forget all about prestige. Do you think people would be spending those dollars at more-prestigious private schools, or at comparably effective but lower-cost, lower-amenity public schools? Similarly, do you think they'd be going to famous research institutions, or famous teaching institutions?
Precise Hanson's theory is not, but it does seem to explain why students pay top dollar to listen to professors who don't really want to teach them.
There may admittedly be a significant collective action problem: if everyone ignored prestige, maybe you should pick a top public school over a top private one. But if it's just you, well, signal away.
What if their lifetime expected income is highly dependent on the connections they make in those years of education?
For example, making partner, or meeting the right people to begin a startup.
If school prestige attratcs the kind of people you need to meet, professor interest in students isn't as important.
This is certainly true for some students, particularly at the high end, but I would be very surprised if it's true for your typical student making this decision. That is admittedly something that would need to be factored in to lifetime expected income, I admit.