I see these responses that tagged me, but if you’d like to continue the conversation you can PM me.
I think you are both onto something with your description of the ubiquitousness of the hyper-ambitious at the Ivys, and also may have inadvertently hit on what often bothers me in these discussions. Tons of hyper-ambitious students at the Ivys is not new. That was true back in the old days when I attended one. What has changed, at least at the Ivy I attended, is the hyper focus on a small subset of careers whose primary feature in common is that they can make people obscene amounts of money. I’m talking finance, consulting and tech.
There have long been Ivy students interested in those fields. But, at my school in my day, that was not what most of us considered the best and the brightest in our class to be trying to do. I was an Ivy Athlete. Many of my jock peers went onto finance and consulting. That was many of their goal. But, that was not the most impressive set at school by a long shot in that cultural time. The most impressive were planning far more interesting things that were not 99% focused on tippy top earnings.
What has changed in my mind, is that the focus of “ambition” in society writ large and as illustrated in frequent discussion here, has shifted dramatically to making the most money as opposed to ambitious careers that have outsized positive impact on the world around us.
I think of my classmates. My wife who is a full professor at a top university and one of the leading experts in the nation (if not the world) in her field. My friend who is one of the top physicians and researchers in a field that has dramatically impacted women’s health. My roommate who created his own major and had some groundbreaking work in developing countries. My classmate who has been one of the top war reporters for a major outlet for 20 years. The federal judges I know. Even my own career would be characterized by any reasonable measure as a tail end result given some of the government roles I’ve had. I could go on with more examples from the old days of folks who had zero interest in going into the finance/consulting/tech realms but were hyper ambitious high achievers in their careers. People like that were everywhere in my day.
What 100% turned my D26 off of my Alma mater when we visited after her sophomore year, was that the students hyper ambition seemed laser focused on the realms that are primarily about making mountains of money. It made the place seem less interesting to her that everyone wants to do the same three things that do not seem to be using the best and brightest minds to advance society as much as they seem targeted on advancing the individuals’ wealth.
I felt as my daughter did on the visit. The ethos has changed at my Alma mater. It’s not that there is more hyper ambition, it is that hyper ambition is more narrowly focused on money. I don’t blame the kids, it is a reflection of our times. But, for some of us, that is no longer the type of place that we prefer to live and learn. I think some of the LACs and non-target schools now attract some of the kids that are turned off by the banking/consulting/tech focused cultures at some of the Ivys.
15 Likes
Is it the ambition, or the ROI that parents (and students) are focused on (more so in the last decade or two)? The prices (full COA) at the Ivies are expensive, even for many full pay families. That’s not the only factor, contributing to an ROI focus, but is part of the issue (IMO of course).
Perhaps the increase in living costs as a percentage of average salaries, even for students coming from elite colleges, is another factor?
Fundamentally, it’s a privilege for the students who don’t have to consider how much money they will make after college.
I’m not sure…there are plenty of LACs where banking/consulting/tech is the focus. Including the NESCAC where my D went. She started with med school aspirations, and ended up in IB. She had no finance/banking aspirations before college, there was intense peer focus on the ‘tail’ end outcomes…and physicians aren’t seen as tail end anymore. At all.
2 Likes
Would be interesting to look at experiences at the schools on the “new ivies list”: https://www.forbes.com/sites/aliciapark/2026/04/08/the-new-ivies-20-great-employer-friendly-colleges-embracing-ai/
My bet is my anecdotal outcome experiences comparing old Ivy and “new Ivy” is not an outlier.
1 Like
100
1 Like
Thanks for sharing that article, @momofboiler1. These are some of the passages that resonated most for me:
“The most promising talents today are beginning to emerge from institutions that prioritize intellectual rigor over inherited prestige,” observed one of our C-suite respondents, adding that the ideal graduate entering the workforce in the age of AI will have successfully completed an education that’s cultivated uniquely human traits including “complex emotional intelligence, radical adaptability and visionary creativity to orchestrate AI tools rather than compete with them.”
I think the intellectual rigor piece is going to be key for any institution. And Harvard et al will need to determine whether the students are mostly getting As because they’re brilliant students who are doing A work, or if there is some grade inflation that is not accurately reflecting the rigor of the education.
And if “complex emotional intelligence” is being highly prized, then perhaps more effort will be made to make sure that all students learn those skills, whether they’re naturals or privileged, or not.
A similar perspective was offered to Forbes by Magnus Egerstedt, a robotics expert who last November was appointed provost of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a three-time public New Ivy winner. “Being successful [in the age of AI] has more to do with the liberal arts than with traditional high-tech disciplines,” says Egerstedt, who spent two decades as a professor of engineering, but is predicting a liberal arts renaissance. “So we’re really leaning in hard on this idea of you need good foundations in something and then we focus on creativity, curiosity, problem solving.” The Stanford researchers, in their November paper observed that while young workers were losing out in jobs where AI primarily automates work, employment was still growing in roles where AI augments human production.
Besides the fact that this promotes the liberal arts (YAY!!!), it seems to indicate the same type of base that many of the consulting and finance folks have stated before…they can teach one the practical skills, but the ability to think creatively, critically, and be a problem-solver are the skills that matter most for positions that end up being important (whether for other forms of ambition or for highly lucrative forms of ambition).
It also means that schools with few or no distribution requirements may want to provide some advice recommending that students seek an education that is sufficiently broad to provide them with the skills discussed as more prominent in a liberal arts education.
That Ivy League-wariness persists, with 37% of respondents this year saying they are less likely to hire Ivy League grads than they were five years ago, and only 6% saying they’re more likely to do so. Those numbers are reversed for public universities, with 42% saying they’re more likely to hire these grads and just 6% less likely to do so. Grads of private colleges that aren’t part of the Ivy, or Ivy-Plus category, also fare better on these questions than those who are.
Since this thread is about the Ivy League in particular, I wonder if the hyper-fiscally ambitious individuals who have difficulty discussing much besides grades/test scores are impacting the impression of these corporate-types who are doing the hiring…thereby worsening the image of their school.
Since @Mom200309 Is no longer a functioning account, let’s move off from posts debating her
3 Likes
The phrase “liberal arts renaissance” really struck me, because substantively, this is pretty much the same sort of thing people were saying way back when I went to college, or for that matter law school almost a generation later (with a grad school detour in between). It does sort of feel to me like there was some sort of peak CS/Quant moment just a little bit ago, and then AI and such has helped fuel the beginning of a countercycle (although it seems cycles are inevitable anyway, as people end up over-choosing the latest hot majors).
Very specific aside, but this became very clear to me when S24 was looking at Brown. They explained the advising process, and generally explained they were NOT looking for students who would use the open curriculum to avoid a broad liberal arts education, and in fact they were looking out for that during their application review. Instead, they saw it as a way to be really free about how you did breadth.
That’s a good question and it probably did not help the quoted more likely/less likely results.
That said, I remain skeptical that any of this is actually hurting kids from these colleges who DON’T fit that stereotype. Like yeah, maybe some of these executives are less positive on the institution, but I still think they likely have zero problem hiring a student from the institution who fits their desired profile. They just may code them as more exception than rule these days.
By the way, a bit cynical, but still . . .
I like to remind myself these institutions did not achieve their multi-generational positioning in US elite networks by being inflexible, or generally resting on their laurels. They are constantly seeking out new financial resources, and then using them to fund whatever they think they need to fund to stay at the top.
So while I have ALSO seen people talking about the decline and imminent collapse of these institutions since I was a college student, they just seem to keep getting wealthier and attracting more and more highly-qualified applicants.
None of this is intended to contradict the idea that business executives are looking more broadly, but just to explain why I think that is a “yes and” effect, not a replacement effect.
1 Like
I am trying to counteract this re: my D22 and how she sees the world and her career direction. Fortunately, she has some friends who are hyper-ambitious but “planning far more interesting things that were not 99% focused on tippy top earnings.“
I have advised my D22 to maintain these friendships and have warned that one of the worst things that could befall her (in terms of happiness, life satisfaction, etc) is if her social circle were to consist principally of “City” (as in City of London) folks.
2 Likes
I’ve read that a key change was Goldman Sacs introducing the two-and-out program . As one author put it, "That let them attract not just hardcore econ majors but people majoring in other subjects who had a passing interest in finance and didn’t know what else to do. " In the Harvard senior survey or equivalent, the percentage in finance/consulting gradually increased after this change until peaking before the crash in 2007, with the pictured percentages, with ~half of those working entering finance/consulting.
Ivy+ colleges are not a monolith and are not unique in students favoring fields associated with higher incomes, but % entering finance/consulting tends to be higher for Ivies than others, such as highly selective LACs. I’ll compare Harvard and Swarthmore this time. Harvard has a larger portion of class working in finance, consulting, or tech (38% of class) immediately after Harvard. While Swarthmore has a larger portion of class working in education or pursuing grad degrees (41% of class) immediately after Swarthmore. This difference in outcomes was not well explained by differences in major distribution.
Harvard: Most Common Post-grad Common Outcomes
1 . Work in Finance – 15%
2. Work in Tech – 13%
3. Work in Consulting – 10%
4. Pursue non-Fellowship Master’s – ~6%
5. Work in Education – 6%
6. Work in Health – 6%
7. Pursue Fellowship – 6%
Swarthmore: Most Common Post-grad Common Outcomes
1 . Work in Education – 11%
2. Pursue Master’s (not MBA) – 10%
3. Work in Finance – 9%
4. Pursue Phd (not MD/JD) – 8%
5. Work in Tech – 7%
6. Work in Government/Politics – 7%
7. Work in Health – 6%
Harvard: Most Common Majors
1 . Economics: 13%
2. Computer Science: 10%
3. Mathematics: 9%
4. Government: 7%
5. Biology: 6%
6. Neuroscience: 5%
Total Above: 50%
Swarthmore: Most Common Majors
1 . Economics: 13%
2. Computer Science: 13%
3. Engineering: 6%
3. Mathematics: 6%
5. Political Science: 6%
6. Biology: 5%
Total Above: 49%
5 Likes
A little shocking (and more than a little counterintuitive) that Swarthmore with -0- alumni reaching the U.S. presidency would have more people going into “Government” than the spiritual home of the New Frontier and Great Society. Of course, I think a lot of this has to do with the fact that despite H’s squadrons of institutes and overlapping graduate schools, it’s Swarthmore where a student is much more likely to have their papers graded by an actual professor and a better glimpse of the human behind the wonkiness. I think it’s called, having “role models”. When I was at Wesleyan, we all wanted to be Colin G. Campbell, the Wall Street boy wonder who turned to academia when he succeeded his boss to the office of president of the university (at least two elite college presidents, still serving - Hiram E. Chodash of Claremont McKenna and Michael R. Roth of Wesleyan - are “Campbell Kids”.)
Becoming president is far too extreme an outlier to expect to make a dent in outcome percentages. Furthermore I believe the only presidents who attended Harvard for undergrads were the Adams, the Roosevelts, and JFK (transfer) – all members of connected political families. JFK graduated in 1940, so no Harvard grads in past 85 years. Harvard post-grad outcomes from 85 years ago are not a good representation of Harvard outcomes today. I expect a large portion who eventually go in to politics also initially work/study a different field after undergrad. Continuing with the JFK example, he joined the Navy after college, then worked as a journalist, before running for Congress.
That said the Government/Politics grads at Swarthmore were mostly working in unpolitical fields. The most common outcome from this group was doing government research, such as research at National Cancer Institute. There was also a significant portion working in NYC DA’s office and similar. Median salary for Swarthmore grads working in Government/Politics was $48k – below typical for both Swarthmore and Harvard.
Well there! Yale has had 2 US presidents since 1940–both of the Bushes. Plus Ford who went to Yale Law School.
1 Like
The 2nd Bush surely is an example of privilege. Doesn’t seem the intellect was there.
2 Likes
Well, I’ll agree to take Obama off the table since, strictly speaking he didn’t graduate from “The College” but merely the Law School. But, not before pointing out that he reportedly was rejected as a high school applicant to Swarthmore. The reasons are hidden behind FERPA rules, but we can reasonably surmise that being the male child of a mixed marriage born and raised in Hawaii was somehow not interesting enough to the Swarthmore adcoms of the 1970s and he wound up at Occidental instead.
As for the Roosevelts let’s not sell them short. It’s not as if they were called from their ancestral estate and anointed the presidential nominees of their respective parties; Theodore was a former police commissioner for NYC, a war hero, a governor and a vice-president. FDR was a state legislator who with the help of his wife was knee-deep in progressive causes for at least a decade before winning the New York governorship in 1928.
JFK probably comes closest to your model of a “connected” political family. His father, Joe Kennedy made it no secret that at least one of his sons would someday be the first Roman Catholic president and he spared no expense in making it come true. Still, to JFK’s credit, he was a bona fide war hero and a Pulitzer Prize winning author in his own right.
1 Like
My point was more that FDR’s parents had an estimated inflation adjusted net worth of $300 million. He came from 2 powerful, aristocratic and well connected families (Roosevelts and Delanos). I doubt that special connections from his Harvard undergrad experience had much influence on his rise to politics or being elected president. Instead one of the key reasons he was originally recruited to politics was being able to pay for his own campaign.
Theodore Roosevelt is more fair. While worth tens of millions, his family was not as well connected as FDR. It’s possible Harvard connections had an influence on politics, although my expectation is more indirect influences. For example, not fitting in with typical Harvard elite and initial lack of success with Harvard eating clubs may have contributed to inspiring Theodore to break through in to politics.
Both attended Harvard over 120 years ago, so I expect their experiences are not well applicable to current students. Swarthmore was also quite different in the late 1800s. Swarthmore’s first class was in 1869, so it was still establishing itself as a new college during this period. I’d expect the overwhelming majority of students were Quakers. I’m not surprised few Swarthmore grads from this period became politicians.
I’m not sure we disagree here at all. Ambiton and a focus on ROI do not seem mutually exclusive to me. The modern Ivy kids are very ambitious, and more of them have focused that ambition on the highest paying areas (or ROI focus as you call it). It takes high ambition to want to be at top IB or consulting firms. And, I am not at all blaming folks for the shift in focus toward maximizing wealth. On an individual level, I get it. But, if that is not your goal, it can make the Ivys less appealing than they used to be. And on a societal level I think we all lose as a result of more of our most talented young people having to think that way because of the financial pressures/factors you identify.
Of course it is. I don’t disagree with this either. However, I would argue that it is not a binary choice of either don’t worry about how much money you will make at all or focus exclusively on the three highest paying options. There is a lot of in between.
I’m not sure what you’re not sure about in what I said. I was not making a blanket statement about all LACs, or even all highly regarded ones. I agree there are LACs where banking/consulting/and tech are a focus. I did not say there weren’t. But, there are also LACs, including highly regarded ones, where that is much less a focus than at the Ivy+ schools today. And for some students, that is appealing.
I think your D’s experience is pretty common at many highly regarded schools. And, I don’t know that physicians were seen as a tail end outcome at the Ivys, even back in my day in the last century. Sure, a few physicians become tail end through incredible accomplishments outside the norm, but as a general matter it was not.
3 Likes
Wow, I think you’re really misreading FDR. The Delano side of the family was fairly dismissive of his early political ambitions (his dad’s branch of the Roosevelts were somewhat iconoclastic by merely being Democrats). His biographers all point to the influence of his Groton headmaster, The Reverend Endicott Peabody and his insistance that the unexamined life of the Leisure Class was not much of a life at all. And he didn’t exactly float his was through Harvard either. He was stung by not making Porcellian; and perhaps as a result, threw himself into his duties as editor and chief of The Crimson.
So, I’m really not sure what part of my “surprise” at the seeming reversal of post-graduation ambitions between modern Harvard and Swarthmore should be so surprising, given their origins?