http://www.nber.org/papers/w12245

We study the location-specific component in research productivity of economics and finance faculty who have ever been affiliated with the top 25 universities in the last three decades. We find that there was a positive effect of being affiliated with an elite university in the 1970s; this effect weakened in the 1980s and disappeared in the 1990s. We decompose this university fixed effect and find that its decline is due to the reduced importance of physical access to productive research colleagues. We also find that salaries increased the most where the estimated externality dropped the most, consistent with the hypothesis that the de-localization of this externality makes it more difficult for universities to appropriate any rent. Our results shed some light on the potential effects of the internet revolution on knowledge-based industries.


你有看The Apprentice 5/4/3/2/1

只有一個Ivy League的是Apprentice 4

Apprentice 5的 Sean 也不是Ivy League,



不想跟你嘴炮

http://www.nber.org/digest/dec99/w7322.html

2.On the Payoff to Attending an Elite College

"Students who attend colleges with higher average tuition costs or spending per student tend to earn higher incomes later on."

In today's high-tech economy, just about everybody has gotten the message that it pays to get a college degree. What is less clear to many parents and their college-bound youngsters is whether it makes economic sense to attend an elite school with a total four-year price tag big enough to buy a nice suburban house in many parts of the country. Does the earnings return from a diploma with the name of an elite institution stamped on it justify the higher expense, or is the reputation of the college aristocracy vastly overblown, at least when it comes to subsequent income? It's a question that more and more economists are researching, while many parents and policymakers would like to know the answer.

Yet researchers have long found it difficult to tease out the labor market effects of college quality versus other characteristics that employers reward. The problem is that students who attend selective schools are likely to have higher earnings potential regardless of where they attend college for the very same reasons that they were admitted to the more selective schools in the first place. In a recent NBER Working Paper, Stacy Berg Dale and Alan Krueger try two novel approaches to solving this problem. In Estimating The Payoff To Attending A More Selective College: An Application of Selection On Observable and Unobservables (NBER Working Paper No. 7322) they use data from the College and Beyond Survey to match 6,335 students who were accepted and rejected by a comparable set of colleges in 1976. They then compare labor market outcomes in 1995 among students who had the same menu of choices, but among whom some attended more selective schools than others. They also use this data set and the National Longitudinal Survey of the High School Class of 1972 to estimate the impact on students' subsequent earnings of the average SAT scores of all the schools they applied to as well as the average SAT score of the school they attended.

They find that school selectivity, measured by the average SAT score of the students at a school, doesn't pay off in a higher income over time. "Students who attended more selective colleges do not earn more than other students who were accepted and rejected by comparable schools but attended less selective colleges," the researchers write. They also find that the average SAT score of the schools students applied to but did not attend is a much stronger predictor of students' subsequent income than the average SAT score of the school students actually attended. They call this finding the "Spielberg Model" because the famed movie producer applied to USC and UCLA film schools only to be rejected, and attended Cal State Long Beach. Evidently, students' motivation, ambition, and desire to learn have a much stronger effect on their subsequent success than the average academic ability of their classmates.

Still, they do find that some aspects of colleges are related to students' subsequent economic success, even after adjusting for the abilities of the students upon applying to college. For example, students who attend colleges with higher average tuition costs or spending per student tend to earn higher incomes later on. The internal real rate of return on college tuition for students who went to college in the late 1970s was a startlingly high 16 to 18 percent. But with college costs up sharply since then, returns have probably come down to a more normal range. The authors speculate that tuition may affect future earnings because schools with higher tuitions offer more resources or higher quality products to their students.

Finally, the results of this study suggest that no matter what measurement of college quality is used, the income gains from attending an elite college are highest for students from a disadvantaged background. "School admission and financial aid policies that have as a goal attracting students from more disadvantaged family backgrounds may raise national income, as these students appear to benefit most from attending a more elite college," they say. Their results are bound to play a role in the national debate over financial aid and affirmative action policies at the nation's premier schools.

選擇學校好好考慮吧
警校出來50k

所以是怎樣? 去比較難進的學校,以後薪水不一定比較高; 但是去比較貴的學校,以後薪水比較高?

進去貴的，因為父母都是有錢人比較多
小孩繼承家業的機會也比較大
早點打好人脈才是關鍵

收入就是貢獻度與稀有度的量化表現.

不要說你的工作也很累,也是重要的一環,但是為什麼收入還是很低.

說穿了,就是你的工作內容並不是很關鍵的那部份, 也就是,老闆要找人取代你是很容易的.

我的收入不敢說多高,平均大於16萬一個月,擁有近20張國際的IT證照, 資訊業價碼最貴的前五張證照就有兩張.

我也沒有多老,就62的小伙子. 學歷也沒有多高,就有個大學罷了. 家境? 平凡的小康而已.

補習上課考證照? 沒的事,靠自己自修找資源想辦法, 我剛開始也是三萬塊一個月的窮小子.

但每次看到剛工作的新鮮人自艾自憐沒前途,沒未來,就想告訴他們: 未來是掌握在自己手裡!

不要想依賴政府,不用去怪罪政客,你自己要負起100%的責任,不要只會找藉口.

因為相同的環境,就是有人可以做得好.

要靠工作拿高薪,你要做更具有核心價值,更具有挑戰性,更有知識性,更難被取代的內容.

到那個時候,你的工作會比其他人輕鬆,而且收入追著你湧來.

我固定六七點離開公司,不常加班,但是我花很多私人的時間充實自己的專業,願意去讀別人懶得花時間理解的東西.

多花時間進修吧, 不要浪費時間去兼差了, 想辦法提升自己的附加價值與懂更多更深的東西.

用時間去換收入,是最窮的人用的方式. 用知識經驗換收入,才是輕鬆又高價的.

不要再找藉口說沒時間了,每天挪半小時唸書會有困難嗎? 你是認真的要改變還是嘴上說說的?

最強的複利,就是投資自己. 要上班成功,你要的是與同事的差異化.而不光只是做完老闆要的東西.

如果自己真的沒定性自修,不兼差也是會把時間虛度掉, 那再來考慮多份兼差補補收入.

8年的時間,從3萬到16萬月薪, 這是真實發生的事件,背後當然有很多額外的付出.

但重點是那不會是一個夢,而是要有決心,自己下承諾要為自己而改變. 你也可以做得到,甚至更好.

靠夭....我的墨鏡放到哪去了找不到






多充實自己，提升不可取代性和稀有性

這個方向在職場上是不會錯的

月收入3萬多算還不錯了，但這林小姐
1.為台中家裡繳1萬貸款 <---為何不搬回去省1萬房租
2.1萬的儲蓄型保險 <---有量力而為嗎？繳這高額的保險

再說窮的同時也先衡量自己的支出吧

理論值跟實際值本來就差很多啊
貧富差距幾倍的母群體是逃稅後......
如果以逃稅前的來算，說不定會超過百倍