I went to college too long ago for this to probably be relevant, but I went to a top NESCAC school- nearly impossible to get into now- and my peers for the most part have satisfying careers (drs, educators, plenty of mid/high level insurance/corporate/gov’t jobs etc). My dh went to a large public (also hard to get into now but wasn’t then) and I would say his friends from college didn’t do quite as well for the most part- but most have found their way into something. The real stars of our friend group went to a solid jesuit school (one rarely discussed here) and have very high flying corporate careers, are highly paid surgeons or otherwise extremely successful. So, no I am not sure based on job trajectory alone you could say top schools are “worth it”- I also have a bunch of Ivy League friends who aren’t doing anything particularly impressive (and a couple who are). One thing that has definitely changed, at my school most kids in those days came from quite wealthy backgrounds- which of course sets you up in all kinds of ways- that seems much more impactful than where you went to college.
We’re having this debate right now. D23 may squeak into her reach school but is that always the best idea? She has another, lower-ranked school, that is flying her out for scholarship weekends and really digging into what she wants to do with her degree. Big fish, little pond stuff. But how much does prestige matter in the end? Maybe a lot?
My other thought is what the OP would make of me personally. I went to a top LAC in the 90s, and had a fancy job for about 10yrs until I quit and had kids. Am I a success story? I mean, I was able to quit because my husband, who also went to the same LAC, makes a good living…but my LinkedIn page is pretty lacking!
Depends if you think the purpose of higher education is to achieve career success (read: make a lot of money).
I don’t.
For many students, improving job and career options is at least part of the reason to attend college, especially given the cost.
@Izzy74 DH and I also attended top schools, did well and got ‘fancy’ jobs at fancy companies/firms. I also left to stay at home with the kids.
My experience at the top school (very positive, but also very geared towards specific type of student) and my experience at fancy company (again very positive and also filled with a mix of top schools and no name ones) is what made me so very comfortable with my children finding schools that fit (financially, academically, socially) over prestige as the primary factor.
I also think @catmom94 hits an incredibly important point, there are going to be lots of students at the top schools with incredibly wealth and opportunity that set them up for success in ways many cannot and do not understand (until they see it first hand).
Linkedin is a poor source for what you are trying to discern.
I work in a team of over 50 people at a “prestigious” global corporation. All of us use the same title in our Linkedin profiles- “Corporate Recruiting”. And most of us over age 30 do not list every single job we’ve held going back to college. You cannot tell who is the worker bee (someone who leads MBA recruiting at Wharton- she’s good at her job, but she’s a worker bee although is moving up the ladder) and who leads the entire global team.
We are not unusual. There are huge functional areas- Finance-- where you cannot tell who is Global Controller (a big job, managing hundreds of people) vs. “Finance and Planning” which is a generic title which is used by 100’s of people, even if they are at the top of the pyramid.
There are entire organizations where everyone is a “consultant”; there are prestigious banks where other than the Managing Director title (held by 100’s of people) you cannot figure out who is running the place and who just clocks in and out.
The Justice Department of the United States- each prosecutors office has a “US Attorney” (a single human being- and a hugely prestigious and important job) and then sometimes hundreds of people with the title “AUSA” (Assistant US Attorney). Some of these are former equity partners at top law firms, some of them will head INTO equity partner roles at top law firms when their government service is concluded. But you can be a seasoned, highly respected leader in the legal field in a hugely prestigious job- with the title “Assistant”.
I love reading the Nobel, Pulitzer and Guggenheim bio’s every year. Sometimes you can tell from the person’s title that they are clearly extraordinary- but many times not. An Assistant Professor somewhere- not even with tenure- and they win a Pulitzer (I bet tenure follows closely thereafter). A freelance photographer who took the definitive photos of a mass genocide and won a Pulitzer for war reporting. Just a stringer! They didn’t even have health care! And Guggenheim’s-- OMG. People whose titles suggest worker bee but whose accomplishments in their field lead them to “genius” recognition.
I’d figure out a better methodology if you want useful information.
And since you asked- my job is the LEAST interesting thing about me, even though I am considered “successful” professionally. And that is absolutely true for my college friends- even the ones with obviously successful careers (our class recognized our first Tony award winner at our 5th commencement- we’ve now got dozens of Emmy, Oscar, Grammy and Tony winners. The latest Grammy winners job title? “Music teacher”. But he was tapped to compose and orchestrate a score- and his success is SO deserved, no matter what he calls himself.
Understand your point about discerning specific levels and I’m by no means an expert. However, since you mentioned managing director which there are hundreds of we can all agree they are above analyst > associate > VP > MD. As for consultant there are also levels. In traditional corporate finance analyst > manager > associate director > executive or senior director > VP/CFO. So it would not be impossible to discern to extrapolate overall trends. These are all great comments BTW and suggest there is no right answer on these rankings are holding less weight. What’s the difference between a Lehigh, Lafayette, Bucknell, Gettysburg and Penn State in terms of US News ranking. Same as the difference between making $60k, $61k, $62k, etc. in that first job. Very little.
and by the way that could just be volume of people in different majors
To me, a top college (if it is the right fit for your child) can have a lot of value beyond what it might provide in terms of career advancement. That being said, I’m not a big believer in stressing about elite college admissions or planning HS around the (remote) possibility that your kid might get into HYPSM etc. There are lots of great colleges where kids can be successful and happy and that will provide a good start to their career. An Ivy League education is a guarantee of nothing, in and of itself. Most Ivy League grads aren’t going to be famous and will live “normal” lives. I’ve got lots of friends that graduated from the Ivies/MIT/top LACs etc and most aren’t doing any better than their neighbors who went to the state flagship. So much of what leads to career success depends on the person, not their college - are they ambitious, driven, willing to work hard etc.
But then many state flagships are much more difficult to get admitted to than they were a generation ago. Could this lead to college admission stress for both the students and parents, when the state flagship that was a safety or low match for the parent is now a high match or reach for the kid with obviously better high school academic and extracurricular achievements than what the parent had? I.e. the parent and kid get the downer feeling that the kid achieving so much more than the parent did only got the kid into a non-flagship instead of the state flagship that the parent went to.
That’s a natural consequence that follows.
I wonder what the breakdown is between between going to college for the SOLE reason of making more money versus those who go to college for the wide range of benefits that a college education confers.
When I went to college, I had an idea of what I wanted to study, but didn’t know what career field I would enter. Possible careers I was considering included journalism, foreign service/diplomatic work, CS, international business, and education (higher ed or secondary ed). The schools that were major contenders ranged from Ivies to state schools. Yet in no way would I have thought that my choice of college should affect which profession I would seek out (i.e. selecting a higher prestige/remuneration field because it was a more expensive university).
I feel the same way about my kid. Our budget is our budget, and the kid can study anything under the sun that’s within our budget. If we win the Powerball our budget will be significantly larger and the most expensive schools could come into the picture, but that still won’t impact what type of career the kid should pick.
I ended up going into the education field and I will say that a number of Teach for America people have come from Top X schools. If they stay beyond their 2-year commitment (frequently en route to law school or similar), more often than not they seek to go into administrative roles as soon as possible, as that is where there is more money (at least in our state). Although all I have to offer is anecdotal, those Top X grads were not necessarily better educators or leaders. But they were more ambitious in expressing their desire for the title and in making the efforts for greater networking. (Please do not misunderstand me that they were poor educators/leaders. But there were others who were equally good or better from “no-name” schools.)
It’s not just a small number. Top X schools are dramatically overrepresented at all aspects of Teach for America. I suspect the structure of the program is loosely modeled on “elite” finance, including the structure of plan to teach for 2 years then do something else rather than expect career in field, the aura of selectivity/prestige/eliteness, and being one of the few fields that seems to emphasize prestige of college name (or at least they used to).
When last reported, 12% of Ivy League seniors applied to Teach for America, but the vast majority were rejected. Prior to COVID, Teach for America’s admit rate was under 10%. Students from highly selective colleges were overrepresented among recruiting and the few who were admitted to the program. When Teach for America last reported stats, the 5 private colleges that sent the most grads to TFA were Penn, Cornell, Vanderbilt, USC, and Howard. Harvard was not far behind and probably would have been among top 5, if expressed as % of student body.
Ivy+ grads have a wide variety of first destinations and types of occupations after college, many of which are associated with lower salaries. It’s not all students pursuing Wall Street banking, Silicon Valley tech, etc. For example, some pursue traditional teaching at an elementary or high school level (not just via highly selective 2-year programs like TFA). Some work in retail sales. Some work as lab assistants/scribes. There are many possible paths.
School names help open some doors. Being in a rigorous and challenging environment helps sharpen one’s focus and develop one’s skills. However, their effects pale in comparison with one’s own level of natural intellect, or the natural ability to connect with fellow human beings, or both. These latter factors can’t be captured in any database or survey (Luck is also a huge factor, but that, presumably, can be “averaged” out in a statistical study).
deleted
Very general comment here and based purely on personal observation. I see far more kids getting started (maybe that’s the key as it impacts trajectory, second job salary bargaining, headhunting for later) at a “higher level” or perceived better position/company coming from IVY/ highly regarded privates than the typical state school or lower tier privates.
I would think the reasons are divided by better resources, helpful/successful alumni, and (most importantly) a peer ecosystem that breeds successful outcomes. I found that to be the case at S’ school. Essentially everyone he knows placed at great companies or top grad schools. They certainly had a ton of fun along the way but outcome was important and seen as a priority throughout the journey (not just business students). Things like attending career fairs and info sessions as freshmen/sophomores. Just a vibe in the air that they should be positioning for their future. Social scientists doing summer research in the same time frame.
I compare this with the masses that attend our state schools (including flagship) and they just don’t seem as driven, motivated, etc. Many are back home living with their parents vs. out in the world and starting adult life. Of course much of that is about the individual kid and a motivated kid could do great things at any of these state schools.
But if we’re looking for trends and desired outcomes, that’s what I observe and it was a major reason S chose a “higher end” school.
I have a different take because I have an engineering student, and I know it isn’t necessarily the same for other majors, but the outcomes for first jobs from her friends, at schools ranging from regional directionals to T10s, are very similar. The only exception that I see are there are more students going into academia vs industry from the top programs.
As far as our own personal experiences, the CEO of my H’s company went to a regional directional and then a Big 10 school for his MBA. Leadership team has a number of Ivies represented but also plenty of non elites. In our neighborhood we see colleges flags from all over during football season.
Unmotivated and undriven students can be found everywhere. Had a friend at Cornell who was asked to leave junior year after not getting off academic probation because he was partying too hard. He wasn’t the only one.
My general sense is that a motivated, successful student who has the grades/background for an elite school but does not attend one for some reason (not accepted, can’t afford, not interested etc) will likely be successful regardless of where they attend college. Ivy League schools (and the like) have a high concentration of these types of students, so it isn’t surprising that many will land in really good careers. Still, I know enough Ivy leaguers with mediocre careers (or in some cases, no careers) that it is clear that simply going to an elite school isn’t enough. Let’s be glad there are so many routes to success because there are too many great students for the number of available seats at elite schools.
@Thorsmom66 - There are numerous studies to support what you’re stating. Kids with similar profiles in HS have similar earnings in their career. Whether you went to UPENN or PENN State matters very little for long term success.
The other thing you have started to see in the past few years is a shift in recruiting. The days of companies limiting their recruiting to T20 colleges will be almost gone by the time this incoming class graduates.
? Evidence for this? The “worst” is to do something “common”?
So “success” (you claim) for an elite college grad is only defined by doing something uncommon? Other than your own bias, is there a scintilla of evidence that this is true? The appeal of Teach For America is–
1- working in an underserved area with disadvantaged kids
2- being able to teach without doing the Ed Certification treadmill- which appeals to some (there are many Ivy grads who do it) and does not appeal to others
3-Professional development-- and lots of it-- evidence-based training on what works and what doesn’t, not the “flavor du jour”
4-a cohort- instant colleagues in the program so you get a collegial group even if you’ve just relocated from Princeton NJ to Tulsa OK and don’t know anyone
5-Fantastic mentoring via the alumni network- either to continue in education, or to do something else.
These are just the top that come to mind-- there are many others.