You can make other arguments about the connection between college and lifetime income, certainly! But they aren't the mathematically closed argument you made early, the one you preceded with "We can make this real simple". It appears --- and I'm sorry to belabor this point --- that it was "real simple" because it was based on an unconventional definition of a central tendency statistic.

I'm still curious about what that definition might have been?

▲

win311fwg 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Right, we made it simple and assumed that college brought a premium, as was earlier told was the case. Therefore, in the simple model, all college graduates occupy the top earning spots. So when >50% of the earning population are college graduates then the median earner must have a college degree.

Now that you're saying that in reality college graduates don't see a premium over non-college graduates and actually occupy the lowest income class then obviously the simplified model breaks. Thems the breaks when you try to simplify. A simplified model will always be just that: a simplification.

It remains unclear what non-standard definition of median you are thinking of? You said you needed to share it earlier but still haven't...

▲

tptacek 12 hours ago | parent [-]

No, I'm saying that you can take someone on either side of a median income statistic and increase their income without changing the median, contrary to your claim that median income statistics prove that lower-income people can't be getting income improvement from college degrees, which, I'll admit, I'm being snarky about pointing out to you, but... still obvious?

The rest of it is not an argument worth having because I don't have strong opinions about the lifetime income premium for college attendence (or the human capital vs. signaling arguments behind it). I didn't attend; I went to work right after high school. Be as mean as you want to college!

▲

win311fwg 12 hours ago | parent [-]

> I'm saying that you can take someone on either side of a median income statistic and increase their income without changing the median

That's true, but has little to do with our discussion. What is the purpose of this diversion? Realized that your non-standard definition you were concerned about earlier but were afraid to share isn't useful and now want to make it clear to me that you have come to understand what median normally means? It makes no difference to me.

> I don't have strong opinions about the lifetime income premium for college attendence

Was there some reason for us to think you did? Not sure what this is trying to add either.

▲

tptacek 12 hours ago | parent [-]

What diversion? You presented a mathematical argument against the college income premium that misconstrued how the median works.

	▲	win311fwg 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		So you keep implying but still haven't shown how that is the case except when you totally changed the preconditions arbitrarily. The assumptions made in the simplified model, based on the discussion before it, was that 62% of the population (with degrees) have incomes higher than the remaining 38% of the population (without degrees). If you really want to go back to your non-standard median definition, tell us how someone(s) in the bottom 38% can represent the median.