This article from a writer with the CATO Institute makes a very interesting point.
It starts out talking about the problems with affirmative action programs. There’s not much new in that quarter. Those problems have been explored by many before.
But then it goes on to make a point that is really interesting. According to the article:
[E]conomists Stacy Dale and Alan Krueger found that name-brand colleges [such as Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Stamford] are the modern equivalent of the Dutch tulip craze. Prices go up and up, but elite colleges offer no financial benefit that less selective schools do not.
Dale and Krueger compared students rejected by selective colleges with students who attended those schools. They discovered that when students’ entering credentials, such as high school grades and test scores, were the same, the rejected students made just as much money as those who attended “top tier” universities.
Students know something about themselves that admissions committees do not. If you think you are Cornell material, you are – even if Cornell doesn’t notice – and statistics show that you are just as likely as Cornell grads to succeed in the game of life. This means that preferences don’t raise minority incomes.
Racial preferences can’t send more minority students to college and don’t raise the incomes of those they move around, but they do reinforce a harmful myth: the myth that credentials, not skills, are the key to success. Students of all backgrounds suffer because elite schools perpetuate this myth.
Ivy league institutions maintain their status by rejecting far more applicants than they accept. To keep applications coming – and parents paying tuition – they practically claim to have bottled success. Anyone can rub elbows with the brilliant and powerful, they imply, and be set for life.
But studies show that skills, not name-brand diplomas, determine advancement in the real world. Harvard grads do well, but they do well because they are skilled and driven, not because they have Harvard degrees.
This confirms something I’ve observed–that there is a low correlation between academic prestige and professional ability. Indeed, some of the most effective and productive folks I’ve encountered do not even have a degree in their selected field. Apologetics is particularly noteworthy in this regard in that nobody in the Catholic world offers degrees in apologetics. (Indeed, I myself am an example of this: My degree is in philosophy, and not from an Ivy League school). But the same is true of others I encounter as well. Often the best people are “self-made men” who lack credentials.
My experience is that native intelligence and drive count for far more than credentials. With intelligence and drive you can acquire the skills that no college program can give you. Careers in academia definitely open doors for one, and do give one a leg up in knowing one’s field, but no matter how prolonged academic careers are, most professional learning is still acquired by on-the-job training. People who are fresh out of school in any field aren’t nearly as skilled as those who have been working for some time. And the sharper and more motivated you are, the more you will push yourself to acquire the skills need to do top quality work.
Admittedly, not all the Big Name Universities are Ivy League, but we might well call the prestige associated with having a degree from such schools “the Ivy League myth.”
Jimmy,
This reminds me of the fact that THE BELL CURVE came out ten years ago this year.
It is tempting to say that we are born tabula rasa, that “I’m the captain of my soul, the master of my destinty” but there are many theological and biological reasons to think this isn’t the case.
I can confirm this finding as it relates to law school.
I attended law school at Temple University in Philadelphia, the same city as the University of Pennsylvania Law School.
In my experience, the students getting into a less-than-Ivy-League school are more motivated to learn when compared to the Ivy’s, where most students who get in know they’re getting in. And BTW, this applies primarily to WHITE students who get in as “legacies” and through other “old-boy” connections.
Also, students in the Ivy’s just assume their degrees will get them jobs and therefore they don’t really have to achieve once they get to the school. All they have to do is not flunk out. In other schools, by contrast, where the degree doesn’t carry as much cache (or at least so it’s thought) there’s more of a premium on the development of talent and achievement.
I can say without reservation that the best litigators in Philadelphia came from so-called second tier law schools such as Temple, Villanova and Rutgers. The Ivy Leaguers look good in their power suits, but can’t craft an argument to save their lives.
In trying to destroy one myth, it seems to me that Esquire is creating another. It may be true that graduating from an Ivy may not be a guarantee for success, but to suggest that they “can’t craft and argument to save their lives” is plainly silly. In my experience as a Penn student, I find that people are actually VERY dedicated to their studies. The suggestion that students mere concentrate on “not flunking out” is simply untrue. As a final note, (and I say this without any concrete knowledge of the actual facts) I would suggest that if you don’t find many Penn grads among the best litigators in Philly, it may well be because Temple, Villanova and Rutgers are attended by a greater proportion of local students than is Penn. But that is only speculation, of course.
A recent job opportunity was opened at a local university hospital in my area- a prestigious, well-paying, medical job. As might be expected, several qualified people applied, many of whom had decades of medical experience, publishings, untarnished records- the works.
The lucky man who got the $800,000 a year salary was a Cornell Arts&Sciences undergraduate, Yale School of Medicine graduate who had a measly 3 years of post-fellowship experience. Surely the gentleman is dedicated, motivated, and driven (a verity Esquire is clearly belittling), but the 65+ other hopefuls with resumes that can hardly be read without a rush of consternation were easily more experienced.
If an Ivy League degree doesn’t at least provide some clear advantages above others, then we may as well assume the handing of jobs is a roulette in which the red Ivy ball just keeps landing.
Dress shoes casual shoes work shoes snow shoes athletic shoes
Shoes generally fall into one of the following categories: dress shoes, casual shoes, work shoes, snow shoes, athletic shoes…
What a joke… Ivy League kids often come from the Ivy League parents. They can afford to pay that tuition. Those Ivy Leaguers are in family positions allowing them special opportunities. This is NOT to say that others can’t compete, they do! Just on a different court. When the family has something as locked down as … say… a Walmart or Oil Company, then there is no real way to compete. Competition at that level has been “afforded away.” But there is a whole other court (playing field). Courts are everywhere! So you might not be the CEO of WalMart… so what – Martha Stewart created her own empire and there are other examples. Oprah, Bill Gates and even the millions of unknown names who have built businesses on their own. Yes, it is hard to do that and especially when your last name (and genetic link) is not “Trump.” So… get your “degree” (or not) from wherever you can afford then graduate to life where you can succeed – This is AMERICA and thank God it is the land of opportunity. You can sell something and make a fortune or you can cry because you were not born into something that handed you something. And those who are handed things haven’t worked for it so they lack the character and wisdom (often times) to not hand that over to the one who knows more. Information trumps money and relationships often trump information. A degree does not equal information or a relationship. A degree is documented proof that you spent X number of years at a certain place. So what… if that degree is not attached to licensure, in many cases it is not worth the ink on the page.
Well, I think that an Ivy League degree might count for something, you don’t have one and you spelled “Stanford” “Stamford” and also failed to realize that it isn’t in the Ivy League.
Wow! You won a game of “Gotcha!” You should be so proud.
BTW, Einstein, no one called Stanford an Ivy League school. Stanford was called a “name-brand” college.
And only ten months after the fact!
Also, um, I believe “Stamford” is the correct spelling in certain parts of the South.