>i think we have to remember that these numbers are *averages*.
>dissagregate them and see what you get, tho you can't actually do
>that with bls stats.
Well of course they're averages. I can't figure out what you're trying to prove here. In general, the more years of education, the higher your pay. There are exceptions, but that's the general rule. If you're a woman with 16 years of education you're going to earn less than a man with 16 years. If you're a black man with 16 years of education you're going to earn less than a white man with 16 years. But a black man with 16 years of education is highly likely to earn more than one with 12.
>i think that it is very wrong to claim that a chico state student is
>going to necessarily be making a significant amount more than a
>highschool grad.
Not necessarily, but in general. No doubt a graduate of Chico State at the 10th percentile is going to earn less than a grad of Chico HS at the 90th percentile. But the central tendency is that the person with the BA - even one in English, I'll bet - is going to earn more than one without.
>afterall, what exactly is the college premium? you know yourself
>that a yale degree, doug, is about having the right attitude-- the
>world owes you something because you are a member of a chosen
>people. now, you don't get that same kind of attitude at lesser
>colleges. you do instill the attitude that you should be earning
>more be/c you have that degree.
It's not just attitude, or habitus, or whatever you want to call it. It's also that employers figure a Yalie is a better hire than a Chico State grad (except maybe to be a night manager at McDonald's).
What's your point?
Doug