How important is your child's school? (Dallas, Converse: loan, lawyers, school rankings)

[synchronicity]

Getting back to early on in this thread re: schools, I think most of the main points were noted, but in really general terms:

A) school metrics (test scores and whatnot) are HIGHLY correlated with the student body's socioeconomic status (SES)
A1) there are many reasons for this, but in general it comes down to parents having more resources to allocate towards their children's education - not just money, but parents also usually having more education and thus being better able to "tutor" their kids every day in multiple ways, as well as the parents generally prioritizing education, which is why they themselves had more and/or they've chosen to send their kids to a "better" school.
A2) it's possible that some of that might be "genetic" in the sense that the kids also might have "inherited" more natural skill than average ("smarter", or "better disciplined" or "harder working" or whatever), but trying to separate "nature" from "nurture" is very difficult.
A3) of course, we're talking at the large group level (an entire school campus), and there are a zillion variations among individuals.
B) Back to individuals - for "your" kid, "you" already have your own resources and know how much time/effort/money you'll devote to your kid's education, and how well educated you are, etc. So the fact that "a school overall has a student body with families like X" is useful but not directly pertinent to YOUR kid.
B1) so, the question is - given one's own education/socioeconomic status/etc., and your kid's own attributes, how much will attending "high scoring School X" improve their educational results compared to "average scoring School Y"?

On question B1, you'll get a range of opinions. We know that School X has metrics that are ## better than School Y. We know that some part of that difference is attributable to SES, so just switching a random kid from School Y to School X won't increase their metrics by ##, but almost certainly by some lower amount. But, is it 70% of ##? 10% of ##? Who knows?

As others have noted, peer groups matter. In general, I would expect that having a higher achieving peer group would have some positive impact on "your kid's" performance (there might be exceptions, where a kid could be discouraged because everyone else is so competitive,so "know your kid as much as possible" is always the best answer), but again, I have no idea how large that effect "usually" is.

In addition, there's also the question of how much the school's teachers/administrators/curriculum/etc. impact results. I tend to think, at least for public schools, that the impact is relatively small (but am willing to be proven wrong). In other words, I think if you switched the entire student bodies of Schools X and Y en masse for a year, their results at their new schools would be VERY similar to at their old schools. I think this is especially true given the increased standardization of curricula for all public schools. Now, certain private schools may give an advantage because they can teach subjects in much different ways. That said, they may be able to do more "interesting" teaching methods because of their self-selection of students - generally smart students whose parents put a huge priority on education and are usually quite affluent.

How you define "academic success" is a separate issue. We usually talk in terms of various metrics like "test scores", imperfect as they are. Obviously there's a lot more to education than that.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

This is a good point, so long as people actually give to effective charities. Most people don't.

A lot of people would say that a given doctor saves X number of lives, but that is almost certainly false. The only good a given doctor is adding to society is the good that is produced by the marginal difference between his or her abilities and the abilities that would have been utilized if the next best person I've gotten to be a doctor instead.

1. I read something last year that indicated Americans give the most to charity both in dollars and as a percentage of GDP almost doubling the amount v GDP given by second place which was New Zealand IIRC.

2. I'm pretty decent with non-monetary utility analysis, substitution effects, margin issues etc.
When a doctor save someones life that doctor saved the life not some imaginary dude smoking a cigar waiting in the wings.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

I think education is inherently worthwhile, and the long-term goal for your children should be happiness, within certain guidelines. Happiness and income become very weakly correlated once a minimum threshold is reached. There are lots of miserable people who earn a lot of money, and there are lots of happy people who earn only decent money. I don't know many people who are intellectually curious and educated who are miserable, though. My point: Money shouldn't be the end game.

There are many very fulfilling careers that earn only decent money.

I think those are good points. I believe part of kyam11's point is that paying and especially borrowing huge money to attend Harvard or George Washington U. etc. and graduating with a sociology degree would demonstrate poor decision making for most.

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by EDS_

1. I read something last year that indicated Americans give the most to charity both in dollars and as a percentage of GDP almost doubling the amount v GDP given by second place which was New Zealand IIRC.

I said most people don't give significant money to effective charities. Most charities give very little thought to the amount of good they do per dollar of input, and few donors give much thought to the issue, either. Fortunately, due to the Effective Altruism movement, this is starting to change. But as it is, few people can honestly claim they have done significant measurable good in the world due to their charitable giving. There certainly are those people, but most "ordinary" folks are not among them.

Most charities receive donations because people are compelled by the story, not by a quantitative analysis of what their dollars will do compared to what they would do at the charity down the street.

Originally Posted by EDS_

2. I'm pretty decent with non-monetary utility analysis, substitution effects, margin issues etc.
When a doctor save someones life that doctor saved the life not some imaginary dude smoking a cigar waiting in the wings.

You have to utilize counterfactual reasoning in these scenarios. Take a step back and ask yourself what would have happened if that particular person had chosen to be a taxi driver rather than a doctor. Someone else would have become a doctor instead, and that person would then have the opportunity to save the life.

Here is an extensive analysis about this very question: https://80000hours.org/2012/08/how-m...a-doctor-save/

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by EDS_

I think those are good points. I believe part of kyam11's point is that paying and especially borrowing huge money to attend Harvard or George Washington U. etc. and graduating with a sociology degree would demonstrate poor decision making for most.

I agree with this, and I think Kyam clarified what he meant pretty well. My wife (a nurse) has worked with a lot of girls who went to TCU and took on a ton of debt in the process. They made the same exact amount of money, and nursing is not a profession where one can typically expect to make significantly more money due to their alma mater. That's a bad decision.

[kyam11]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

You have to utilize counterfactual reasoning in these scenarios. Take a step back and ask yourself what would have happened if that particular person had chosen to be a taxi driver rather than a doctor. Someone else would have become a doctor instead, and that person would then have the opportunity to save the life.

Here is an extensive analysis about this very question: https://80000hours.org/2012/08/how-m...a-doctor-save/

This is simply hogwash. You are assuming that the next person that became a doctor would be as good at diagnosing, recommending treatments, performing treatments. As someone who has been in thousands of procedures across various specialities not all physicians are the same and certainly are not plug and play.

I certainly get the point that if Doctor A who has saved 1000 people was not a doctor then Doctor B would likely save some amount so it wouldn't be that all 1000 now don't get treated.

The million dollar question is would the alternative doctor save more, 90% of, 50% of, etc.?

[UnfairPark]

Originally Posted by EDS_

I think those are good points. I believe part of kyam11's point is that paying and especially borrowing huge money to attend Harvard or George Washington U. etc. and graduating with a sociology degree would demonstrate poor decision making for most.

One of my SIL's uncle studied anthropology at Princeton, he is CEO of a fortune 500 company so a lot also depends upon an individual, big percentage of these folks are successful. Most examples of people with elite education not making money are useless as most high IQ folks who make into these selective places aren't focused on money. Another reason is some students aren't that good to begin with, they get in on hooks like legacy, athletics, underrepresented backgrounds and don't try to reap the benefits as well.

True advantage of these institutions is for students who get in there on academic ability and take advantage of the opportunities available.

[UnfairPark]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

I agree with this, and I think Kyam clarified what he meant pretty well. My wife (a nurse) has worked with a lot of girls who went to TCU and took on a ton of debt in the process. They made the same exact amount of money, and nursing is not a profession where one can typically expect to make significantly more money due to their alma mater. That's a bad decision.

TCU is not a selective college with exclusive academics. Their admit rate is like 50%, most elite colleges have admit rate in single digits. Only reason to go pick TCU over UTD is if you get merit scholarship or financial aid or your family can afford it. It is a good college so overall experience is worth it if it's not breaking the bank.

[numbersguy100]

Originally Posted by UnfairPark

One of my SIL's uncle studied anthropology at Princeton, he is CEO of a fortune 500 company so a lot also depends upon an individual, big percentage of these folks are successful. Most examples of people with elite education not making money are useless as most high IQ folks who make into these selective places aren't focused on money. Another reason is some students aren't that good to begin with, they get in on hooks like legacy, athletics, underrepresented backgrounds and don't try to reap the benefits as well.

True advantage of these institutions is for students who get in there on academic ability and take advantage of the opportunities available.

Legacy admits, athletes, and those from underrepresented backgrounds, in my experience, take advantage of a school's brand name more than anyone. And because many of these schools give As to basically everyone, it can be difficult on paper to differentiate, other than tests related to graduate school admissions which aren't relevant to those looking for jobs after graduation.

[stan4]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

I agree with this, and I think Kyam clarified what he meant pretty well. My wife (a nurse) has worked with a lot of girls who went to TCU and took on a ton of debt in the process. They made the same exact amount of money, and nursing is not a profession where one can typically expect to make significantly more money due to their alma mater. That's a bad decision.

Yes, and hasn't this been the problem all along?

Of course, the college tuition has gotten out of control, but even considering that, people aren't planning for what they're using their degree to do.

It's just a little bit silly to spend a lot of money on a tool to do a job that doesn't justify the cost of the tool.