Last year the Chronicle of Higher Education gave us the lowdown on the specific circumstances where it can be extremely important to attend a particular name brand elite college.
If you want to get a job at the very best law firm, investment bank, or consultancy, here’s what you do:
1. Go to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, or (maybe) Stanford. If you’re a business student, attending the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania will work, too, but don’t show up with a diploma from Dartmouth or MIT. No one cares about those places.
2. Don’t work your rear off for a 4.0. Better to graduate with 3.7 and a bunch of really awesome extracurriculars. And by “really awesome” I mean literally climbing Everest or winning an Olympic medal. Playing intramurals doesn’t cut it.
This comes from a study where Lauren Rivera of Northwestern University interviewed insiders at these elite firms.
Keep in mind this study focused on very specific career paths. If a student is truly interested in a high-powered investment banking career or something similar, then paying for that gold-plated college degree might be worth it. But how many 18-year-olds really know they want the lifestyle entailed in working for a white-shoe firm? For those who are committed to this particular plan, Bryan Caplan offered a summary of the winnowing process that is conducted in the human resources offices of these employers.
1. Most applications practically go straight in the trash…
2. Evaluators have a lot of slack…
3. Super-elite credentials matter much more than your academic record…
4. Super-elite schools matter because they’re strong signals, not because they’re better at building human capital…
5. At least in this elite sample, I’m totally wrong to think that extracurriculars don’t matter. … But they have to be the right kind of extracurriculars. You have to signal that you’re not signaling!…
6. Grades do matter somewhat, but mostly as a cut-off. They’re a signal of work ethic more than IQ…
The credentialing game starts young.
Robert Teitelman pointed out that the process ensures these top firms will be staffed only with individuals who had the good fortune to be able to play the credentialing game that begins at a relatively young age, and essentially culminates at age 18 in the college admissions process.
On the face of it, there’s a quality to Rivera’s conclusions that seems pretty obvious. Anyone who’s been around Wall Street and consulting — or anyone with a teenager suffering through college admissions — knows the pressure that exists to get students into “elite” schools, however defined, in order to slot them onto a transmission belt to high-paying jobs, mostly at what Rivera calls the elite professional-services firms. This is the core of the myth that drives so much of upper-middle-class child rearing: the necessity of getting the tyro into Harvard or other elite universities, not for any educational attainments (so impractical), but for the effect it supposedly has on future prospects. Rivera is essentially putting flesh on those ghostly bones; she’s arguing that decisions made in college admissions — good, bad or indifferent — play a determinative role in where you go to work and how much money you make. She is not only offering empirical backing to the mania for, say, elite kindergartens and endless tutors, but she’s significantly raising the stakes: only the “top” matters. This is remarkable if only for the fact that college admissions, for all its importance, is about as scientific as necromancy.
The system is “terrible for organizations”.
It’s a bit frightening to realize that employment among these firms essentially relies on the signaling granted by admissions to these elite schools. As Megan McCardle explained, this system is ‘a convenient shorthand for a group of people who are really busy” and is “terrible for organizations”.
The Ivy League is full of smart, interesting people. But it is not full of all of the smart, interesting people in the country, or even a majority of them. And given the resumes required to get there, it produces a group of people who are narrow in certain predictable ways….
This requirement to get the “right” degree from the “right” college to enable you to get the “right” job also exists in other fields. Here’s an example from the world of music.
In my subfield of music, we have a version of the above phenomenon which determines who gets jobs. There is a short list of maybe half a dozen cronies who basically run the profession, and if you manage to get into their grad programs, you will get whatever top jobs are out there in a given hiring season. Jobs are filled with a phone call.
As someone else mentioned, the current market conditions don’t help things. If a committee has to weed people out of a stack of 200 applications, the pedigree is a quick (and dirty) method of winnowing the list without bothering to look at other aspects of the applications.
Choose your graduate program carefully and with full knowledge that you will be sealing your own fate before you even hit the campus.
A broader lesson for those in the college search and selection process: Consider how important the particular school and/or department is in the trajectory of your desired career. In some cases it might be a determining factor, but in most cases it is not so consequential.