In this case, new research indicates, no matter what elite universities say - or what any college or university says - the answer is no (or at the very least, it depends). And there's a study out today that shows an elite university does not even boost one's earnings, versus an ordinary state U. More after the orange thing.
The stunning--but not stunning if you've been paying attention--findings come from a Gallup/Purdue study that shows elite schools and less selective private and public schools are about equal in promoting graduates' long-term well-being. What's equally revolutionary is that the researchers measured well-being, not just money and status, and they insist that well-being matters.
"I have a different way of evaluating colleges now," said Brandon Busteed, executive director for Gallup's education division, which along with Purdue University conducted the poll of 30,000 graduates. "It's not whether the school is private or public or selective or expensive - that doesn't matter."
Okay, so, well-being matters, and where you went to school doesn't influence it that much. But what about money? Or, I should say, MONEY MONEY MONEY? What about that? Won't Yale ensure that you're earning SO MUCH MORE than East Wherever State U?
First, there is a growing awareness that graduating with a non-marketable degree in literature is much better than not graduating at all. In other words, if you keep students engaged, they will be more likely to graduate. If they're bored or overwhelmed, they may just drop out. And there goes their earning potential. The writer of this piece at the Atlantic agrees with this.
One reason English majors tend to earn less than business majors, for instance, is that many lit-loving 18 year olds aren't particularly motivated by money, and want careers in, say, PR or journalism (or even teaching!) that are short on pay, but meet their interests. Saying business majors earn more only because of what they studied is like saying having lots of Nike running shoes in your closet makes you a faster runner. No. People who care about their mile times and love to run are more likely to have more running shoes, in the first place. Business majors tend to be more salary-focused than poetry majors. It's a classic self-selection bias.
There's also something to be said for encouraging students to study something that they enjoy, or have a natural talent for. Namely, they're more likely to stick at it. When a bored or frustrated student switches majors, whether it's from engineering to biology or economics to sociology, it often increases their time to degree, which in turn makes it less likely they ever graduate.
But, okay. It's important to graduate. But what about those who do graduate? What about money? Or, rather, MONEY MONEY MONEY? There is a new study out from the
National Bureau of Economic Research that says,
"... students who attended more selective colleges do not earn more than other students who were accepted and rejected by comparable schools but attended less selective colleges."
So there's that.
And then there is William Deresiewicz, who's caused a stir in Ivy League circles with his book "Excellent Sheep." He's been causing a stir with his book, "Excellent Sheep." The "excellent" is the students who have jumped through hoops their whole lives and know nothing different. The sheep part suggests that these students, who have been groomed for the Ivy League, and, by extension, the upper echelon of American society, know how to take tests and achieve at extracurriculars (just enough activities to make them well-rounded and therefore attractive to the top ten universities in the nation), but have no life skills and, sadly, come out of college with no life skills.
The Ivy League, he says, is full of itself, bloated with cash, worshiped by society, desperately sought by the upper middle class and... for many students, not worth it. I just interviewed him last week for my podcast. Fascinating guy and though I don't agree with everything he says but I do agree strongly with one prescription: that we (society) fund public eduction, like the U of California system used to be funded. Cal was free at one time. That way, parents of the upper middle class won't have to be so desperate to get their kids into one of only ten schools that are deemed to be worth their money.