Choosing a college is not simple as it might seem

Matthew Yglesias discusses a recent article by Gregg Easterbrook that suggests that it doesn't matter so much where you go to school. Easterbrook's article is based on research whose important conclusion is that, while graduates of elite colleges are more successful than people who went to non-elite schools, "the student, not the school, was responsible for the success." He concludes that high school students shouldn't worry too much about getting into, say, Harvard, since you can be just as successful going elsewhere.

Yglesias points out a major flaw of this argument:

The proper conclusion to draw from the Krueger and Dale data, however, is rather different. Their research indicates that there may be no good reason to attend Harvard if you can, as will usually be the case, get a more attractive financial aid package from a less selective school or else simply find a lower tuition at a public university. Their research most emphatically does not support the conclusion that whether or not you can get admitted to a highly selective college matters. On the contrary, the research indicates that the methods used by the admissions officers at these schools are rather good at identifying persons who are likely to achieve high incomes later in life.

In other words, if you can get into Harvard, you're pretty likely to be successful, and you shouldn't worry too much about actually going there.

But there's a larger point that both Yglesias and Easterbrook miss. Well, that they might be missing, depending on what they consider the purpose of college to be.

The research quoted deals exclusively (as far as I know) with the income levels of graduates of various schools. Now, if the only thing that matters to you in choosing which schools to apply to and deciding which one to attend is your future income level, follow Easterbrook's and Yglesias's advice: go to a school that will give you a solid education without sucking your (or your parents') savings account dry.

My view on what matters in college selection differs.

First, you're not just making a decision about potential future income; you're deciding where you're going to live for four (give or take) years. Urban, suburban, or rural? Big or small? Greek scene? Strong athletics? You're going to want to consider these questions (and plenty more) when you're picking a school. Yes, the decision you make could affect the course of the rest of your life. But you should also consider what you're life is going to be like for the four years you spend in college.

Second, not all people go to college with the objective of making the most money they can. If they did, everyone would be majoring in computer science or engineering, or have plans to head off to law school. There are plenty of people like that, of course, but I doubt they're a majority. College students take classes in what interests them, be it history, English literature, or biology.

Suppose a student was accepted by just two schools: Swarthmore and Haverford. They're pretty similar in a lot of ways - both are in suburban Philadelphia, both have under 1,500 students (all undergraduates), both have rather liberal student bodies. Haverford offers the student in question a financial aid package that brings the annual cost down to $30,000, while Swarthmore's offer puts the cost at $35,000. According to Yglesias, the student should go to Haverford and put the extra money in an IRA.

But wait! What if the student wants to major in engineering? You can do that at Swat and you can't at Haverford.

Now, I'm sure that Yglesias would accept that the student should go to Swarthmore and deal with the extra costs. He hints that factors besides future income should be considered when he answers whether you should go to Harvard: "Apparently not. It's not an especially fun place to spend your time and the weather's terrible."

But maybe some people do find Harvard to be a whole lot of fun, and maybe they love Boston's weather.

My point is that the college game isn't nearly as simple as either Easterbrook or Yglesias makes it out to be. All other things equal, yeah, you should choose a good, cheap school over a great, expensive one. But it's incredibly rare that all other things are, in fact, equal. If all students cared about was making the most money in the long run, choosing a college would be a whole lot easier than it actually is.