A few weeks ago (3/18/15, A24) the New York Times had a lot of letters responding to Frank Bruni’s excellent piece (3/15 column) on admissions to prestigious colleges. Most were on “my side” and Bruni’s—skeptics about value-added.
I was intrigued by his claim that the children of Fortune 500 company heads were not largely graduates of Ivy league schools. I am glad to hear that is still true. It was 30 years ago I know. That is a good sign that we might pull out of what appears to be a dreary future if we only focused on the right things—not on getting in to Harvard.
But that is mostly because there are not enough Ivies for all the high-earners. Some make it going elsewhere. Does it hurt their futures? Bruni thinks not. Probably some of these rich losers end up at Ivy-league grad schools. In any case they will not be unemployed. And, probably, it is true that for poor kids, and kids of color, the Harvard/Yale/Princeton badge get many more interviews and probably jobs. But the number are small.
So, imagine again. Suppose Harvard started taking in mostly kids of color and those from poor families. Would that soon even up the future earnings and job status of Black and white, rich and poor kids? Especially if all the most prestigious schools—even the top non-Ivies—did the same? Or would it merely create a different pecking order of what constituted a top-notch school?
Or suppose 100% of all students got BAs, does that mean that the statistically significant economic advantage that comes with having a BA would rise, fall, or stay the same? Or if all got MAs? And supposing that it could be demonstrated that they hadn’t lowered “standards” to achieve these results? Would every additional BA or MA create an additional well paying job? Is that just the way the market place works?