Bruni makes a solid case for students to go for a right fit school and encourages everyone to end the elite school craze. He backs his thesis with plenty examples:
- There’s no pattern on elite schooling for the executives of top 100 corporations in the Fortune 500 list. In fact the vast majority of schools attended by these CEOs were not elite and many were public state schools, which are regional in nature and a great foundation for local politicians (senators, representatives, governors and even presidential nominees)
- There’s also no pattern of elite schooling for winners of the Pulitzer prize, (PECASE) Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers) recipients, or MacArthur Foundation “geniuses”
- There’s no pattern among those successfully hired for entry level positions. Some employers look at GPA as barometer of work ethics, rather than school reputation. In Krueger and Dale study, they found no difference in the endpoint among two top high school students who chose to attend Penn State and UPenn, respectively. Both ended up in the same entry level consulting job despite having very different college experience.
Finally, Bruni quotes the Platinum Study in which ⅔ of corporate leaders did not attend elite institutions for undergrad. But ⅔ of those who attended grad school went to a top 10 school in their field. This reiterates the point that students may thrive in a non selective institution or small liberal arts college facilitating their admissions to more selective graduate programs later on. USC and Oberlin were noted as good feeder schools.
I agree with Bruni that the student does not necessarily need to choose the most selective college s(he) is admitted to. Factors such as major selection, college culture and financial packages all should be considered as well during the Admit weekend college visits. These will determine the right fit school where we hope the student will thrive and be happy, providing the foundation for graduate programs or employment.
No comments:
Post a Comment