Mean wage data for top ranked schools is likely skewed by the number of people who go into banking and/or corporate law, where salaries are much higher, especially for 28 year olds. Ezra Klein had some good discussion on this: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/why_do_harvard_kids_head_to_wa.html Median wages might be interesting to look at. I think you might get something closer to linear. Either that or top school medians would get dragged down by the number of grads who go into academia, non-profit careers etc. while big state schools would be bolstered by the number of grads who go into business? At this point I'm in speculation territory.

Kudos, for translating that article into dense bio-jargon worthy of the most obscure scientific journals. I wouldn't have understood a thing otherwise.

I notice practically all the studies that show East = collectivist, West = individualist use mainly American or Western European as the "west" and Chinese, Japanese etc. as the "east", 
 
but how come I rarely see comparisons about Middle Eastern, Indian or South Asians etc.. would these cultures fall in line alongside the Chinese in the eastern/holistic/collectivist type?

"Regarding the perhaps snide remark about the intelligence of people at ETS -- I used to work there and knew plenty of people there who scored 800s on there GRE V or Q." 
 
I took the GRE twice and got a full score both times (2400/2400 & 1600/1600). Does it mean something? I never assumed it meant much as it seemed too easy and I didn't really prepare for it(a week or so).  
 
I have never seen myself as being exceptionally intelligent, though I manage to get by(no false modesty, this is my honest opinion of myself). I am from India and pretty much all my friends got an 800 on the Q section without preparation. This may have something to do with the intensive math training in schools in India (nature vs nurture?). The V, I admit, was somewhat more challenging. 
But overall I can't see what the big deal is about the GRE. It seems like you guys take it really seriously, but it didn't appear to be a good measure of exceptional intelligence to me.

Edited By Siteowner

If the phenomen of assortative mating is true, then I don't see how the study's methodology would be able to discern the effects of BGH. Low IQ slaveowners may have been "randier" than their smarter brethren. Today, one hotbed of interracial mating are colleges, which can be seen as segregated by test scores and IQ. Most IR couples are BM/WF and who knows how gender can affect genetic contribution? Directly measuring the IQs of interracial families would be too easy of course, but the silliness of beating around the PC bush only works to generate needless statistical ponderings like what is found in this topic.

Okay. No hair color/weight/height/skin color/eye color is better than another. It's the beauty of DIVERSITY, people. Come on, wouldn't it be boring if we all looked the same?

There are a few actresses in Hollywood who are NATURAL blondes...Meg Ryan, Drew Barrymore, Kim Basinger, Charlize Theron, Kirsten Dunst, & Melanie Griffith, to name a few. Uma Thurman actually is a natural redhead, not a blonde.

There are some lovely brunette actresses too...Catherine Zeta-Jones, Ashley Judd, Liv Tyler, Gwyneth Paltrow (former brunette), Marilyn Monroe (former brunette), Lucy Lawless, Justine Bateman, Yasmine Bleeth, Pam Anderson (former brunette), etc.

So, no, blondes are not prettier & no, they don't have more fun. Blonde women are unfairly stereotyped as being loose, silly sluts...on the other hand, it's not "jealous brunettes" who perpetuate this. What reason would I, a beautiful AND bright brunette, have to envy a blonde? There's lots of fun in being brunette, believe me. I believe the stereotype comes from the fact that in the 1940's, blonde hair was in. It was considered very glamorous for a woman to have light hair at that time. Most people would be surprised to know that Marilyn Monroe was NOT blonde. She was, in fact, a dark brunette until 1948...her hair was bleached blonde to advance her career. The same with Jayne Mansfield. Jane Russell's hair remained black as did Liz Taylor's. These starlets were all really DARK-HAIRED with lush figures (think Bettie Page, too), but blonde hair was in demand at the time so most of them started bleaching away.

Most adults who had fair hair as children later end up being light or dark brunettes. Most natural blondes are dark blondes...very light blonde hair is a recessive gene & therefore extremely rare. In blacks, it is almost nonexistent. I happen to be a mixed person with porcelain skin & dark hair & I can say that it is RARE for black women to be naturally blonde, even when light-skinned. Beyonce Knowles is not a good example, as her hair is not her own...she has what we call a "weave." And it looks very unnatural on her. Mariah Carey naturally has light brown hair that has been both bleached & highlighted blonde...she is NOT a natural blonde. No, blonde hair looks foolish on anyone not of European descent, simply because blonde hair is primarily a European trait, albeit a rare one.

Blondes are not prettier, more fun, more feminine & vivacious than brunettes. People have their preferences, of course, but brunettes are just as beautiful. Marilyn Monroe was no blonde before her career took off. Neither was Liz Taylor, Jayne Mansfield, Jane Russell, Bettie Page, or Joan Collins. Most brunettes have a dark beauty that cannot be described. I find blond, dark-haired, & black men attractive. Blond males tend to be boyishly charming, dark-haired men tend to be very sensual, & black men tend to go after what they want in life. I
More....

Well...I don't know what Commenter said that you found offensive. She never used the word 'slut' at all. And she never said anything was wrong with people flirting. No, I believe what she meant was that she has a lot of respect for her friend, who is a REAL blonde with a good personality & lots of intelligence...hence, men are attracted to her for these qualities, not just her blond hair.

I have heard that blondes are treated differently by men (better), but as a brunette, I've never experienced that at all. I've had a blonde friend for about 7 years who is jealous of the fact that I receive more attention than she does when we're together! There's a lot of popular myth surrounding blondes but IMO, it's only hype...it's only a hair color, like somebody said.

It upsets me that people are stereotyped/labeled for whatever reason. I'm not sure how any of it started, really. People believe it was due to Hollywood actresses back in the 50's but as I said, most of them were just very sexy BRUNETTE women who went blonde as a career move or simply because they wanted to.

Amy, you sound like a very strong person...a fine quality. I agree, most of the "ditzy blondes" were former brunettes...however, I don't agree with (quote): "now overwhelmed by the attention they're receiving by becoming blonde" (end quote). These particular "bottle blondes" were probably ditzy & foolish in the first place. The fact that they decided to go blonde only played up the dumb blonde stereotype even more, unfortunately for the natural ones. There are some pretty blondes. There are some pretty redheads. There are some very pretty brunettes who are even more beautiful & sexy than some blondes.

All in all, you seem strong & confident. Don't let people's stupidity & judgemental attitudes get to you. If they want to judge you by your hair color, that's their problem. You know the real deal about who you are as a PERSON, not just a blonde.