Right-Sizing Influence
My intention is not to criticize elite private colleges, their graduates, or the authors of the other two studies. In fact, the primary aim of the Opportunity Insights study was to demonstrate the unfair admissions practices at Ivy-plus schools. The findings—for instance, that those schools exercise staggering preferences for the children of America’s wealthiest families—are invaluable, and I cheer the research. My hope is to right-size our understanding of the value of Ivy-plus and other elite private degrees when it comes to American leadership. Such a shift in perspective will spark two significant changes: It will alter how we think about higher education and leadership development, and it will modify the research and reforms we pursue to expand opportunity.
Overstating the importance of elite schools poses real dangers. Philanthropists committed to developing future leaders will tend to invest disproportionately in the Ivies, at the expense of the many other schools that deserve it. State policymakers, who control and fund public universities, will be unaware of the leadership development contributions of their schools. Students from non-elite schools won’t be given opportunities they deserve because they will be deemed to have graduated from the wrong type of university. The students themselves may not pursue certain opportunities because they believe they went to the wrong schools. Journalists and commentators will give undue attention to elite schools—growing their applicant numbers and endowments—while ignoring other schools’ contributions. Ambitious, high-potential high school students will only apply to elite universities instead of lower-cost, closer-to-home schools that quietly develop scads of leaders.
Once we appreciate the major role of non-Ivy-plus universities in cultivating leaders, we may well pursue both research and reform differently. Researchers clearly need to create a better system for defining elite professional landing spots and categories of accomplishment. I believe the other studies’ choices shaped their findings, and I’m sure some would say the same of my choices. How can we decide, in a balanced way, which positions and organizations to put into these categories? Should mayors be included? Or each state’s top employer? Or leading nonprofits, or winners of the Presidential Medal of Freedom? Another factor to weigh is that because of history, tradition, culture, and geography, the roles considered elite may vary in different parts of the country. My use of each state’s top law firms was meant to respect geography, but perhaps it unduly prioritized the practice of law. In some places, relatively fewer young people might aspire to work for law or consulting firms, preferring instead to find a great job at the company that’s been in the county for 100 years and sponsors local charitable causes; or lead the region’s largest agricultural or natural resources firm; or own the most profitable mill or shipping company; or run a symphony orchestra or regional art museum. Even if there is no consensus on the categories of accomplishment, further study would offer a clearer picture of the education pathways into various domains of leadership.
We also need to better understand the role of affinity bias. Is it the case that some institutions are continually populated and led by elite-college graduates simply because elite-college graduates tend to choose people like themselves? Prior to my research, I generally accepted that the benign term “network effect” explained a large part of Ivy-plus graduates’ career success. I had understood that term to mean that the expansive web of well-placed Ivy-plus graduates helped younger Ivy-plus graduates meet prospective employers, learn of job openings, access career advice, and so on. This “old boy” (and now “old girl”) network is surely part of the picture. But I now worry that something more pernicious is at work: that at the point of a final decision—for a scholarship, fellowship, job, award, promotion—Ivy-plus graduates give an unfair advantage to people like themselves at the expense of others.
This is no distinction without a difference. This would mean that equally or more qualified non-elite graduates are denied opportunities because they do not share a specific characteristic with those empowered to select. In practice, this difference matters enormously. Those who subscribe to the “network effect” understanding could accept that Ivy-plus graduates enjoy an advantage and then aim to make Ivy-plus admissions processes fairer (for example, by ending preferences for the children of the most affluent families). But those who subscribe to the “affinity bias” understanding will want to dramatically decrease the role of Ivy-plus graduates on selection committees—whether for Rhodes Scholarships, MacArthur Fellowships, faculty positions, op-ed columnist jobs, or law clerkships.
More work also needs to be done on the dynamics of leadership and place. Why do elite-college diplomas seem to mean so little in most of America? Why do they seem to mean so much in a few states? Is our view of the influence of elite schools distorted because those with platforms are disproportionately located in the places where Ivy-plus degrees do matter?
If we better understand all of this, we will be positioned to better serve students. High school counselors will give better advice, philanthropists will make better-informed investments, and administrators of scholarship programs will make smarter decisions. We’ll be able to develop leadership training programs tailored to each type of school’s strengths. We’ll also be able to develop selection systems for coveted opportunities that enable all talented individuals to compete.
And ultimately, we’ll be able to deliver on the promise of the American Dream. Telling young people and their families that the way into professional positions of esteem is to go far from home to attend expensive, exclusive universities runs counter to America’s sense of opportunity and egalitarianism. Populism and other anti-institutional movements are built on the public’s view that their leaders are distant and unfamiliar with, even uncaring about, people’s day-to-day lives. Resentment builds when we sense that those in charge are not like us. Americans would benefit from knowing that, contrary to the dominant narrative, non-elite graduates already hold many positions of authority and respect. And they would smile if they knew work was underway to give talented graduates of all schools an equal shot at a full array of prized opportunities.
