I’ve frequently found that the New York Times will publish articles about scientific research that directly contradict the research.
In this article the NYT reports that:
A 1999 study by Alan B. Krueger of Princeton and Stacy Dale of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation found that students who were admitted to both selective and moderately selective colleges earned the same no matter which they attended. The study suggested that the motivation and drive of the student mattered more than the college.
Here is what the abstract of the report says:
We find that students who attended colleges with higher average SAT scores do not earn more than other students who were accepted and rejected by comparable schools but attended a college with a lower SAT score. However, Barron’s rating of school selectivity and the tuition charged by the school are significantly related to the student’s subsequent earnings. Indeed, we find a substantial internal rate of return from attending a more costly college.
So, the report says that average SAT score doesn’t mater to a graduate’s earning, but tuition, Barron’s rating and selectivity ( “competitiveness” in the body of the paper ) does. From this, the NYT writer concludes the opposite, that selectivity does not matter.
The NYT author either did not even read the report, or read it and ignored it, or is entirely illiterate, or is so dedicated to an ideology to be blinded by science.