tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5051751968280100794.post4313515287732703558..comments2008-04-30T18:57:26.153-07:00Daniel Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5051751968280100794.post-35238653331219041592008-04-30T14:38:00.000-07:002008-04-30T14:38:00.000-07:00Was there/is there a potential for self-selection bias in the data though? From the summary, the study seems to have taken up two sets of individuals -- those who enrolled and followed through (with a progression of income corresponding to how they made it) and those who could have enrolled but did not (non-attenders). This is of course a counterfactual, but might it be that those who did attend might have ended up doing better regardless? Should the equation really be "access to higher education" + "some minimum level of dedication/value of that education" (leading one to attend) = higher economic output over the long term?Joshua Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13735810624620151231noreply@blogger.com