It's all very well to say this, but on what basis do you make this statement?

These things increase your chances of economic success:

- Credentials that employers view more highly (Xavier wins; if OP's beliefs about the relative prestige of X are correct, by quite a lot)

- Wealthier friends, more intelligent friends, harder working friends (X wins handily)

- Finishing your degree and being motivated to do well. OP's impression of the public school is not favorable, the tutes are large and impersonal, he feels like a number. Whereas he seems to like X.

- Networking with the wealthy/competent - X wins handily. Someone said the X's superior employment data is a selection bias effect, and it may well be, but at the same time, having classmates and actual friends who go on to high end jobs in finance or back to work for the family company opens all kinds of back doors into jobs and knowhow (asking friends, etc) he couldn't go near as a public school grad.

It's your belief that these are negligible. Given that OP is seemingly wanting to set himself up locally and build a life there, I couldn't disagree more.

Graduate school (the occupation variety like a JD, not masters or PhD) is evil and life destroying. They don't have it in Europe and Australia, and imo these countries are better for it. No sane human does 6-7 years of study just to become a lawyer.

If you're not a moron and you organize yourself and ignore the useless bloatware in courses, you can handle the class load in 30/week hours with a 4.0.

It's based on empirical evidence and not a deductive logic bullet point list (see Dale and Krueger 2014).

The burden of proof isn't really on me though. If you spend extra money, you should be able to show with some certainty where the returns to that money will come from, but no one has really been able to do that. In a case this specific, OP could probably enumerate most of the differences concretely with some more research. "Which internships are available at X and not NKU?," etc.

Agree with the rest although econ as a major can be time-consuming if you get sucked into taking difficult electives (e.g., upper-level mathematics).

No, dude. It's based on one cuck study that actually concludes:
That says all you need to know. However:
What this means is that if they massage the data sufficiently, they can get whites down to zero (and fail to mention poor whites in the summary), thus achieving their aim of providing research support for the postmodern political movement of more affirmative action.

Social sciences academia is dead, truth is fully subordinated to the progressive project, and it has no credibility.

You seem like a reasonable person, so naturally this won't sit well with you, so I'll give another data point. As an example of how unhinged education research has become, there were actually two thoughtful and intelligent professors in the SMP forum here whose common sense was so destroyed by the literature that they claimed that the research data showed that SAT scores were not a good predictor of performance at college - let that sink in. If obvious irrefutable truths with the strongest possible data are twisted so badly by the literature that those reading them think the polar opposite of truth, then the discipline is worthless even without the fact that most published research is wrong. The research is so bad in the humanities it can completely mind**** two intelligent people, including an admissions chair. Seriously, read the exchange and come back and tell me your study is worth anything once it starts trying to further the progressive political aim by data torturing.

Your study before data torturing supports my side, strongly. I appreciate you posting it.

You just posted it.

Why would he bother? My list is perfectly valid.

So let's get this right, rather than take blunt advice in stride and dispense with it, you wasted god knows how many hours going through 6 years of posting history to find something you think I might regret posting to zing me, because I bruised your fragile little ego. Good god, that is probably the pettiest, most immature thing I think I've ever seen anyone do.

At this point, you don't have a chance of achieving what you want to achieve. Those people you want to work for you will smell your entitled little ******* from a mile away.

He considered your advice and found it wanting.

That understatement though...

commas,are,funny

You're very correct, I don't think I have found what I am meant to do yet. This is especially apparent over these last few weeks that I have been wrestling with this decision. However investing is basically the thing that I have found that I am most interested in compared to every other career "type" I have been exposed to. I'm not really set on being an RE investor but at the moment that's just one of the more interesting things I know of.

If I happen to find a 9 to 5 that I enjoy and am happy with then I'm not opposed to doing that all my life. I'm okay with having a typical career and would be content if I could find one. I'm just worried I might not find that office job that I will enjoy for 30 years.

Yep, it kinda sucks in a way but then again maybe it is actually fair.

.................................................. .................................................. .......................................

1) Left mouse click on your name
2) Left mouse click on find threads started
3) Scroll through one page of threads
4) Look for threads relevant to the "advice" you have bestowed upon us here

Hey T. Boone Pickens it took less than five minutes to see how your investment thought process works on a position that I was already in on. And since you had concerns about my psyche I thought it would be a good idea to peer into yours. It's called considering the source.

1) Read the real estate thread on this forum. Its probably the best one on the internets for information.

2) Bigger pockets has very good podcasts for newbie investors. You'll get established RE investors giving advice.

3) Don't bother in low income RE investing unless you have a head for that kind of business.

4) Right now in bull RE markets there's 0 yield out there on a surface level, you have to scour if you want that yield.

5) Its not a bad idea to work a job, save capital and invest in RE on the side. By the time you are 40 you should have enough passive income.

6) Invest in good areas.


This might seem like very simple advice, but its because RE investing is a very simple business.

No, you don't really understand what's going on here with the methodology.

"Standard regression models" are the ones that don't account for ability bias. Of course Harvard graduates earn more than Arizona State graduates--they are far more talented on average. When you match people on ability, that effect disappears.

Yes, there are still effects for some underprivileged subgroups. This is also the single best study on the topic using two large cohorts matched with actual payroll data.

lolk

Anyway, the point was about providing OP with advice based on reality and not delusional conspiracy theories. The most important courses you will take in econ are intermediate micro and econometrics. If these end up being sham courses, then you got ripped off. Learning how to code STATA/R would be the single best skill you could get from econ, so see if anyone at those schools wants to play ball with you on that. Usually you can pick something you're interested in (real estate valuation) for the big project.

Agreed. It is completely delusional of you, and contradicted strongly by the data, to claim that an individual is not very much advantaged by attending a better college after controlling for all measures of ability. You have it completely backwards. I'm actually embarrassed for you given how didactic you've chosen to be. I deal with that more below.

I understand perfectly. This is level 1 correction for selection bias, which I talk about often. Hilariously:
lolwtfbqq at the bolded? Are you stupid or something? Controlling for ability bias is precisely what all the studies do. First line and already it's YOU that doesn't understand what's going on with the methodology. Amazing. From the paper:

These things - representing measurable and measured ability - are controlled for in a wide variety of prior studies that conclusively show that better colleges give much better earnings outcomes, after controlling for all kinds of measurable ability. Do you understand that now? Your statement above is completely false. Just how stupid do you think previous researchers were...do you think they simply presented a correlation with no serious work to control for ability? WTF?

So what did this study do differently? It did some sneaky data massaging to try and come up with a conclusion that allows people to advocate for more affirmative action at Ivy Leagues, thus achieving their goal of becoming the toast of progressive academia.

So what did these guys do?
Already someone who's not a moron would do a double take, and wonder how and why does one control for "unobserved" quality, while throwing out plenty of solid objective observed data you can control for, without introducing massive data snooping and invalidating your results?

They further cite other studies (note we're getting down further and further into data snooping here - arbitrary choice of cutoffs/comparisons among hundreds, a large number of cohorts):

But even when you do that, you find extraordinary results - white men who are at the same level and struggling to meet state admissions cutoffs (poor performers) make 20% more after graduation if they go to a prestigious college. That's huge. And again in line with the generally strong results.

As you go further, it gets further and further into idiot level data snooping:
lolk?

And now we get to the meat:
1. Same results as before (strong college effect)
2. Adjusted for observable selection biases still show it.

So how did they massage the data to get the progressive politics they wants? By doing something very weird:
Let me put this in plain English for you. When you adjust for SAT scores and all other measures of individual ability, individuals who go to better schools disproportionately have better earnings by a big amount. For example, the data shows conclusively that if Johnny got a 1200 SAT and 3.5 school GPA and and then chose a non-prestigious college, and Jimmy got a 1200 SAT and 3.5 school GP and then chose a prestigious college, Jimmy would crush Johnny in earnings.

How do they make this disappear? By handicapping the better school vs the worse school on its average SAT! Basically manipulating away the very advantage a better school brings to being with (more competent peers).

This is shameless data manipulation with no reasonable basis, and would not have passed peer review if it didn't find its progressive political conclusion.

But even this doesn't matter. Because;

Did you even ask OP if his parents were well educated? They're not that well off so they might not be, and OP doesn't seem to have the connections that this mentions. In short, your own study might show that a better college will be very good for him, controlled for ability, yet here you are giving horrible advice that there's essentially no difference except for minorities.
That it's the "best study" means nothing. It's a fact that most published research is wrong. The original data - from prior studies as well, I might add - show that attending more prestigious colleges gives vastly better outcomes for an individual after controlling for individual observable ability. They say this as well.

You have to be an unobservant person not to agree with this. Did you actually read the link I posted? This is the state of academic research into educational outcomes where it touches on anything to do with potential racial issues - outright reality denial and false statements even among the best in the profession, in furtherance of the progressive political project.

Seriously, read it, it'll take 2 minutes of your life. If you come back and say "nothing to see here, this is fine, this area of research is credible", then ok.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/4...t#post52747279

I assume you are too stupid/religiously indoctrinated (we all have our sacred cows!) to understand what an amazing state of affairs the link above shows.

Hahahahaha

Regardless, taking that amount of time and effort to try and zing someone instead of just dispensing with advice clearly proves my suspicions about you being immature and easily ego-bruised, neither of which are characteristics which will carry you very far in your endeavors to be a successful businessman. It was actually pathetic.

As far as your conclusions of someones investing acumen from one thread attempting to garner advice from investors with superior know-how (which I fully admit exist here), aha yet further evidence you are indeed overly judgmental as I suspected. You're proving my point!

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, as you are quite obviously as young and stupid as I was when I was in university, and perhaps not aware of widely held problems with young men and socialization due to pornography addiction. Regardless, bringing up that thread was totally irrelevant and didn't do anything but prove how petty and immature you are.

Anyway, intending as I was to give you advice to prevent you from making some of the same mistakes I did (wanting to do A, but doing B instead because it was 'safer'---never a brilliant idea) it now appears you readily admit you haven't thought any of your desires through at all, and your goals are half-baked, so the best advice clearly is to stay in school until you know what you want to do.

Instead of getting so salty when someone calls your character into question, you should dwell on it a little. You are still young enough to prevent personality flaws from becoming pathologies that will hold you back in life. Good wishes.

OP, you should ask to run it twice.

More seriously, there is huge variance in potential outcomes with each choice. It depends on what you will do with your savings. It depends on your ability to develop a decent network AND which people you network well with. It depends on whether you are ok with dangling participles. It depends on which school puts more people into positions of power in whatever job description you will choose. It depends on which school will provide you with the skills you need if your lack of networking skills make you destined to be part of the proletariat.

Oh, and if you want to get rich, you have exactly two choices: 1) Be a salesperson or 2) be a salesperson and pretend to yourself that you aren't a salesperson.

Edit: forgot 3) have rich relatives who make you rich.

I have already read a little bit of the RE thread but am going to read more, and I will be sure to check out that podcast. Thanks!


Yeah, I wish I could lol.

I've read Rich Dad Poor Dad too but clearly being a salesperson isn't the only way to get rich. "Everyone who is successful is a salesperson because the are selling an idea" or "Salespeople are the highest paid profession in the world". Selling "ideas" isn't the same as being a salesperson imo which is usually where that line of logic leads to.

When I say I don't want to be a salesperson I mean more specifically that I don't want to be a real estate agent or stock broker, hard selling everyone I meet and harassing my friends and family for business. That is one of the biggest reasons I didn't become a Realtor after getting my license. When talking to the different RE agency's they all wanted me to make a big list of basically everyone I had ever glanced at and call them asking if they wanted to buy a home or knew anyone that did. I'm not the type of person to badger people like that. It's like when that person you met one time through a mutual friend hits you up on FB because they are a Realtor, cringe.

OP,

I talked to a colleague that has contacts at NKU econ. Not sure if it will influence your decision at all, but I'm sending the info via PM.

Thank you! I'll be sure to take a look at it when I get out of class in a bit!

Ability bias is what the study sought to filter out. Ambition bias otoh is something it didn't account for and im having a hard time imagining how they would.

The greater return that minorities see from elite colleges is likely a good proxy for lower socioeconomic returns in general which is not surprising. A person from a wealthy family going to one of these schools says a lot less about how ambitious they are monetarily. If you're forking over 150k and come from a working class background though it's both something you'd expect to be associated with high ambition and in a lot of ways obligates the person to work harder because of the increase in debt.

These are good points. You can't prove it empirically, but to the extent that you can show something, there appears to be a strong advantage to a prestigious college independent of ability (and I would argue that demonstrated ability is in large part ambition).

The weakness of any kind of empirical proof is why I went through the lit of reasons. Then an empiricism nuthugger came in and claimed that his study showed something, and that it was somehow more valid than my reasoning.

1) No, it isn't, because you can't really study this reliably at the crude empirical level that the these studies look at it. You'd need randomized samples
2) To the extent that we could look as close as possible at randomized samples (the cohort at the very cutoff for admission, say), the data strongly showed a huge advantage for a prestigious college.

It only makes sense. The halo effect is real and strong, and prestigious (local or national) colleges confer it. They get applications looked at, the network of people from these colleges are far better off/more successful, etc. It depends on the town, but there are plenty of cities in the world where the upper class won't think much of you unless you went to certain schools. And these tend to be the people with money. Given that hobos don't sign your paycheck...

You have poor skills in picking reading materials. I hope, at the very least, that after reading his (and any other) self-help book(s) that you've learned to not purchase additional self-help books.

It is still selling. I think I mentioned that in the clause that started with "2)" in the post you quoted.

"It doesn't feel like I am selling anything," is the sort of thing a person in group 2) says to themselves. They typically get paid much more than the person who builds/invents/develops the thing that 2) believes that they aren't really selling.

Some obvious exceptions apply, but I didn't see above anywhere that you have some whiz-bang skills that command $300k/year.

Well, real estate agents are not typically rolling in dough, so there is that. Did it not occur to you that the few weeks it takes to get a real estate agent license might not exactly be a barrier to entry and that if they are happy to hire you and anyone else (who has a pulse and a few weeks of free time off to do the rigorous coursework to obtain the incredibly difficult licensure that denotes them as a professional in the real estate business) the street that it might just possibly not be a high-paying and well-respected occupation?

I hope, at the very least, that you've learned to stop wasting your time on such things. If so, I expect updates once you receive your degree in something that leads to a high-paying career or get started on the long slog of becoming some sort of real estate mogul.

The only time it's worth being a real estate agent - for people who can earn even 2/3 average wage some other way - is if you have a niche in some small town, you own your own business, or you're either very beautiful or love sales/manipulating people and have the skills to pull in a decent commission or work in the very high end.

OP should never be a real estate agent and it's just horrible advice to suggest he should.

No. Absolutely no. Better to just ask your rich aunt for money directly if you are in the above categories of people. Skip the middle man and don't be a pretender or, if you feel the need to develop a better skill upon what you already have, use your skills more well.

It is a fine occupation if you are a bored househusband or wife and it keeps you from doing the poolboy

Jesus I didn't realize being a Realtor was this bad.

Rolling in dough is relative, to an 18 year old they are "rolling in dough". To cover your whole first paragraph (quoted): I'm pretty sure I mentioned everything you said earlier ITT when I was talking about the whole why I don't want to be an RE agent a few pages ago.

Yeah, I do believe I have learned to stop wasting my time on the things which is why I started taking college (and life I guess???) more seriously.


Nobody does, until you get roped in.