Over the years or decades, some professions’ first professional degree has been changed to a higher degree. Recent examples include physical therapy and occupational therapy. An older example is law.
Obviously, that increases the barrier to entry (both in time and money) to the profession.
My reaction to Bruni’s view is “Well sort of.” There are also “prestigious employers”, even in tech, where we take pride in objectivity and merit (seriously). Having a FAANG on your resume will definitely open doors. At the very least, you’re likely to hear more from recruiters. You’re also spared having to explain what your current or past employer does to an interviewer who has never heard of it. A smaller company may still be useful for building a network. It has been a source of annoyance to me that I have done some of the work I’m most proud of at companies that few people have heard of, but they can spot the big name on my resume very easily.
One point that hasn’t been discussed much in this thread is how each advantage can be leveraged into the next one. Job experience does matter the most after a few years, but where you start is influenced by where you got your degree. That doesn’t mean it’s worth the expense of a private college for that reason or that it will be either necessity or sufficient to land a great first job. There’s just no question that it provides an initial advantage.
You’ve just described the best year of my life. 
OK, it was only about half below street level, and affordable enough that I didn’t need a roommate. Prestigious… well, yes for the university, but it was not actually known very well in my field (another issue with grad degrees). Still looks pretty good on a resume.
Money could always wait, and I am doing quite well now 25 years later. This is not because of my choice to pursue a PhD. It is a source of pride to me that I did original research that is still cited. Money is just money, only one metric of success, and I am well beyond satisficing in that category. I can’t imagine doing it any other way.
There is statistical evidence that middle class students who attend economically diverse public schools do just as well as students who attend less economically diverse schools with higher overall test scores. The general take away is that students with resources at home will do well in both settings.
That said, one of my children did much better after moving to a magnet program than he did in our neighborhood middle school. In terms of statistics, I’m sure he would have continued to do very well on the metrics like standardized test scores but for him, it was the difference between disliking school and liking school.
So, yeah, there might not be a huge statistical advantage in overall earnings for going to a prestigious university but the usefulness of this data in determining the best school for your child may be small. There is also data to support that students who start attending 4 year colleges are more likely to graduate than those who start in at community college. And, data to support that students who live on campus to start with generally do better than those who commute. And, evidence that low income students reap the most benefit from attending prestigious schools (which are also 4 year programs where students live on campus).
This board is full of people who encourage students and parents to choose an option that doesn’t put the student or family in potentially unmanageable debt. So, the consideration of the ROI for prestige schools is already pretty much baked into College Confidential.
And yet on other threads, it’s common to see people advocating starting in community college to transfer to a better college instead of settling for the one that accepted you after high school (or is that strictly a California strategy for UCs?).
I have to go with my gut, which says that if my oldest stayed at home another year he’d languish and not improve his chances at all. I’m very excited to be seeing him off, though it is not to his first choice of school. He seems to feel the same (and honestly wasn’t that picky or disappointed).
On the other hand, I don’t doubt that the community college route is the right decision for others, and not just for financial reasons. There is little to conclude here except that there is no one-size-fits-all.
Bruni was educated at The Loomis Chaffee School ($60,000+ per year) a prep school in Windsor Connecticut followed by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa in 1986 with a B.A. in English. He was a Morehead Scholar and then attended Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism from which he graduated second in his class with a master of science degree in journalism, and also won a Pulitzer Traveling Fellowship.
As we have discussed every students circumstances are unique. Similarly I think every adults opinions are both unique and the product of personal experience.
Frank Bruni is a very talented and credible author but his personal narrative suggests opportunities, talents and resources that very few people are blessed with or have access to. Buyer beware.
The idea of “settling” suggests a student whose likely and safety applications were just throw ins that they did not really like. This might be especially the case for students whose idea of fit is mostly based on prestige / selectivity / exclusivity.
However, in some cases, the student’s needs (including financial limits) and preferences changed between application and admission, making much of the original application list worse fits than originally thought.
In terms of starting at community college with intent to transfer, this appears to be relatively common in California, since that path is well used, and the UCs and CSUs intend to have about a third of their graduates be students who started at community college.
Consider a new college grads resume (or LinkedIn profile). What does it consist of? Well, after the typical front matter a typical resume will list College attended, degree, GPA (maybe), followed by work experience (internships), research experience, and maybe publications. Most if not all of that content is strongly influenced by the college attended.
One thing I’ve seen as our S has transitioned from being a student is that the way internships and employment offers are made is vastly different that what I experience back in the day. All of his internships and eventual job offers where either initiated by referrals (profs, VC, fellow students) or by direct outreach from company recruiters via LinkedIn. The days of cold submissions of resumes might be ending?
I like Bruni’s NYT columns, and have nothing against him personally, but now that you mention his own pedigree, it makes me wonder if he’s the right person to be making this case.
I’m also reminded of a book I read a few years back. Excellent Sheep: The Miseducation of the American Elite and the Way to a Meaningful Life by William Deresiewicz. It made for interesting reading, and I could halfway sympathize with the author’s lament.
On the other hand, it was very hard for me to escape the conclusion that the real scandal is I’m invited to bemoan the fate of a very small fraction of students who are obviously getting a lot of challenge, support, and attention, many of whom are going to reach positions of power and influence way beyond mere monetary reward. I mean what about the rest of us?
Deresiewicz’s focus just seemed incredibly misplaced to me. At the very least, the top quartile of the population ought to concern us if not the overall level of education. Problems limited to less than 1% of the population are just that, except that this “elite” makes their problems into more general problems through their influence.
Disclosure: I’d send my kids to Harvard if I could, but I still think public universities are more important to society at large.
My point in Bruni’s case is that he is a perfect example of how prestige begets prestige, economic flexibility begets flexibility, or success begets success. I am not trying to minimize, criticize or quantify what went into his foundation of affluence and elitism but his personal achievements and accolades we’re hardly independent variables. Instead it is a perfect example of taking full advantage of and leveraging opportunities one upon another.
Example being Loomis no longer “matters” in his thesis, but it was the foundation upon which all else was built upon. People will most recently recall best seller but how can you say it happens without Loomis?
Suggesting the second job after college eliminates the impact of the college is analogous to setting out on a 1,000 mile drive south and suggesting that the second 100 miles of your drive eliminates the significance of the first 100 miles driven even if it had been spent driving dead north.
Careers and lives are built upon experiences, relationships and lessons learned. To suggest that ones past (academic or otherwise) doesn’t impact the future is being overly simplistic just as someone that suggests you can’t overcome or change a persons past. It all matters but by how much or how little simply depends.
Sorry I tripped getting off my high horse.
Specialization or concentration can be good or bad, depending on whether employers happen to be looking for that specialization or concentration. For example, computer game design seems to be a popular specialization or concentration (sometimes with a dedicated college major) among students, but it is only a small part of the computing job market (and the actual work environment may not be as nice as some believe).
Of course, an undergraduate who specializes within the major may still want to learn enough of the general stuff in the major (which will typically be useful in the specialty anyway) in order to be adaptable to other specialties in the major if the job market changes.
It has long been the case that getting a job is much easier if you have connections – remember old sayings like “it is whom you know, not what you know”? However, in computing, the actual skill at the job is somewhat more testable and measurable than in some other fields, so the greatest advantage goes to those who have connections and relevant skills, as in “it is whom you know and what you know”, and strong demand for now means that the unconnected do have a reasonable chance.
I’m not sure that is hugely common outside places like Stanford, where students know they’ll have their choice of opportunities, and potential employers will seek them out. But I do think that is an advantage of prestigious colleges in some settings - S saw at the think tank he worked at last summer that many interns from those colleges had bypassed the public application process via referrals.
I know my S has keyword notification criteria set up in various job boards and sees lots of opportunities that way. He has carefully curated his LinkedIn and Twitter profiles since the age of 16(!) including connecting with anyone he meets who he thinks could be useful to his career aspirations, which clearly makes a difference to potential employers. And he has a resume ready to go (with different versions for research vs corporate jobs) and was able to apply with a personalized cover letter immediately upon seeing the ideal opportunity. It all ended up being very straightforward (he got the first job he applied for both this year and last), but required him to be proactive.
What amazed me was that none of his friends had the same level of preparation and most are only just now putting together a LinkedIn profile as a rising senior in college. Some would even procrastinate about whether to apply, and send in an application for an internship just before the closing date a month later that was pointless because it was clear that the company was going to interview candidates as they received the applications rather than all in one group later on.
My assumption (probs wrong) is that most that do specialize would seek to start their career in their area of specialization. Another assumption is that all study the basic core/general topics because “whats hip today might become passe’”
Very much agree here…
I totally agree. But many parents will take this to heart and start the competition long before kindergarten. That seems excessive. I could list a number of decisive points in my life, not all of them “elite” or costly, but I think it would be hard to predict the impact with perfect foresight.
Would you say that Bruni’s path was more determined by his prep school (and assumed family wealth to pay for it, which may have come with various helpful social connections) or by the fact that he was an academic superstar at UNC which he then followed up with a prestigious graduate degree (where he again excelled academically)?
It seems to me that one conclusion you might draw (albeit only applicable to a miniscule slice of the population) is that taking the cheaper undergrad path (in his case the full ride scholarship) can be just as good as the prestigious undergrad path if you are a truly exceptional and proactive student and follow this up with a prestigious graduate degree.
I have absolutely no idea. What I do believe is that almost all individual decisions and opportunities are a product of past experiences, future expectations and a variety of other influences of which many are random.
When I was in HS I had a coach who preached you have to out work the competition. When I was in college my coaches mantra to me was you can’t score unless you are in a position to shoot the ball. I once asked the college coach about why he didn’t focus on work ethic like my HS coach. He said if I had to tell you to work hard you never would have made it to this level, now I need to coach you to be in the right place to succeed.
My point being working hard and being in the right place at the right time all matter to varying degrees and are a function of effort, coaching and luck to name a few things. A lack of one can be overcome and an abundance of all can be wasted but regardless all are inextricably interrelated.
I can’t tell you chicken or egg with Bruni but I can tell you I believe that both impacted each other.
Specialization or depth of knowledge doesn’t have to come at the expense of breadth. Specialized knowledge is much more difficult to learn on your own than more generalized (but shallower) knowledge. Therefore, a competent student is typically better off to lean in the direction of greater depth in some specialty in college while broadening the base of her/his knowledge through self-study or other means.
So an hour of Latin is easier to pick up than an hour of French literature or Electrical Engineering?
One of mine is poor but happy in PhD program with stipend that is not the best. Happiest years of their life.
I’d consider learning Latin to be a specialty.