FDR grew up in a political family, including a father who supported Grover Cleveland’s elections and took FDR to meet President Cleveland in the White House while a child (According to FDR, Grover Cleveland told him, “A great many people will probably tell you that they hope you will be President of the United States, and I want to tell you that for your own sake, I hope you will never have to be President”; picture of meeting below post), and a brother who worked for President Cleveland. FDR also mentions being inspired by his relative Theodore Roosevelt, who became president while FDR was at Harvard. FDR was also related to at least 11 other previous presidents through his powerful aristocratic family lines – ~half of previous US presidents at the time.
FDR’s first election in 2010 involves being recruited to run for state senate by the Democratic party. Primary reasons why the democratic party chose to recruit FDR include having the right name (Roosevelt), sharing his father’s passion for the Democratic party, being well known in that local NYS area, and having enough money to bankroll his campaign without external funding. My point is that attending Harvard wasn’t the key that unlocked political doors for FDR – being a Roosevelt did.
Your original reply mentioned Swarthmore having 0 alumni who became president as a reason for being surprised. That’s what I was commenting on – drawing a connection between number of Swarthmore vs Harvard president alumni and % working for government immediately after graduating. I wouldn’t assume there would be a clear relationship.
I’d expect a more clear relationship to be that Harvard and Ivy League grads in general are more likely to start in fields associated with higher earnings such as finance, consulting, and tech than LAC grads in general. Government is not such a field, so I’d expect only a small minority to pursue. Looking up some other highly selective colleges, the norm for both Ivies and highly selective LACs seems to be quite few grads working in government/politics after graduating – lower than both Swarthmore and Harvard. Even Georgetown that is located in Washington DC only had 3% working for government and 1% working in politics. Instead the most common outcomes for Georgetown grads were as follows – a larger portion entering finance/consulting than Harvard, but a smaller portion entering high salary fields in total since tech is much smaller.
1 . Working in Finance – 19%
2. Pursuing Master’s – 12%
3. Working in Consulting – 10%
4. Working in Health – 7%
5. Pursuing JD – 7%
This is correct. I work in an industry, not STEM, that is highly desired by graduates. We have many applicants from the Ivies and Ivy+, with a (in my opinion) not insignificant percentage of those candidates having a nepotistic connection in some way. And what we’ve needed to do is institute a totally blind skill test for the applicants we’ve deemed potentially worthy of hiring. We’ve had far too many Ivy and Ivy+ applicants with a “4.0” in the major that would make them most qualified for this field who can’t do even the basics. Grade inflation is unkind to the students. Because these candidates seem totally unaware that what they’ve turned in to a potential employer in their desired field is not an “A” but, in some cases, not even a “C.” The reason I mention the nepotistic connection is that, when said actually a C student is turned down, we’ve occasionally had parents get in touch, truly upset. I was totally caught off guard the first time this happened. Now I expect it, and have guidance ready.
Yesterday I saw a friend in passing whose son seems to be a victim of the phenomenon you are describing. He’s at an Ivy where he planned to get a degree in bio/environmental science. Now he’s rethinking that because he feels the pressure from his peers — most of whom are hoping for prestigious/high paying jobs. Now he thinks he should go to medical school because it’s more prestigious/ambitious than his original plan.despite never being interested in medicine before.
Another factor in grade inflation is student reviews, which are often required at the end of a semester. In some cases, salary is even tied to reviews. And of course there is Rate My Professor where rigor in a class results in bad ratings. Students are consumers and colleges are businesses that respond to those consumers.
My D’s company added a skills test last year, for the same reason. Applicants now need to analyze a data set on the spot, put together a slide deck, and give a short presentation to the interview team.
As an aside but related to rigor- in my D’s senior year, the prof who was teaching her senior design class was also teaching the same class at a private T10. D had a friend taking the class at the T10 and said the prof constantly complained to them that the Purdue requirements were much more rigorous and that he was reprimanded by the dept head (at the T10) for expecting “too much”. At Purdue, the design project was a novel experimental design, a total plant scale up, all the OSHA safety analyses, and the cost projections. The dept head of the other school said that would be way too much work for a semester and would only let the prof assign the design part.
It’s just anecdotal but D’s company doesn’t do any recruiting from that other school. They’ve adjusted to a handful of schools where they feel like their new hires were the most prepared. The list has shifted over the years.
In terms of rigor/ratings - Purdue seems to have a student culture that prides itself on knowing that there is no grade inflation. Lots of the Rate My Professor comments will say stuff like “super hard class but the professor is great”. I didn’t see students shying away from hard classes even if they weren’t required for graduation. D and many in her cohort were taking masters level classes junior and senior year for their concentrations.
Just to be clear, when you say “nepotistic connection” do you mean these Ivy League grads have a relative who works at your organization and then when the kid does not get the job, the parent calls and complains?
If so, how embarrassing that should be for the relative who works there. And, many places have policies against nepotism in hiring/promotion which I’d think said call would potentially violate if your organization had such a policy.
I mean in the industry as a whole. And we do indeed have firm policies in place. None of the applicants are “direct children of” – they would be clearly counseled to apply elsewhere in the industry for first jobs (and they would want to in my experience! I can’t imagine any new grad wanting their dad or mom right down the hall unless it was a family business, but this isn’t that…). But there are plenty of “friends of” of varying shades and we can’t bar them from applying—that would also be unfair. Which is another reason for the blind test. I would be far too embarrassed to make such a call myself on “behalf” of my child, and I assume a great many other sensible people would be, too. But plenty are not. My response is to stay calm and conversational and offer compassion + plain facts.
Got it thank you. I have always understood nepotism to refer to favoritism or cronyism for family only. When people talk of hiring of friends, I don’t think of that as nepotism.
I also assumed the relative at the organization (if there were one) was not the parent who called. Rather that an uncle or cousin or something worked at the firm and then the parent, who might also be in the industry but not at the firm, called when their kid got rejected. I thought that would be embarrassing for said uncle or cousin and put them at risk via company policies.
I’m also usually pretty skeptical of nepotism claims at an industry level. That is in large part because historically, lots of people go into the same industry as their parents. Not because of nepotism, but because it is what they see and know every day growing up and what their parents can and do teach them. In my experience, people tend to whisper nepotism with no evidence practically every time a successful person’s kid makes it in the same industry. However, your example of a parent in the industry calling an employer after their kid fails to make the cut is a textbook example of a failed attempt at industry nepotism. So embarrassing for them! And shameless.
I understand how you are upset that Nepotism junior was not selected at our firm. I thought it would be helpful for you to know that out of 200 applicants who took our blind test over the last five years, nepotisim junior had the lowest score of any of them.
I hope that information is helpful.
Signed,
Are you seriously writing to me about your adult child?
Are you asking if posters are disputing about the concentration of strong students at Ivy+ universities? Or are you asking if posters are questioning the idea of “sharpening your steel” or even high “ambition” as the end goal of attending an Ivy+ university?
Based on my experience decades ago, my answer to those disputes would have been: 1) yes, there is a concentration at those colleges and universities and 2) I didn’t hear my peers talk about their college selection as driven by the belief that “Steel sharpens steel” ( it may have been a side benefit, but I didn’t hear it expressed as driving their choice). Nor did they seem be excessively focused on personal ambition though many have become very successful (and some have not).
Based on my children’s experience now, my answer to those disputes are: 1) mostly but there are also fantastically strong students elsewhere and that the definition of “strong” student is complex, because at least at my kids’ Ivy+ colleges, there some students whom I would not necessarily characterize as strong and 2) More of my daughters’ peers seem focused on personal ambition and pre-professional. It is relatively more than I remember from my own time, but there are still plenty of students who are not “ambitious” if you are defining definition as wanting to reach heights of power or wealth.
While I don’t fully agree with your definition of grinder or insufferable, here is personal theory based on next to nothing but observing my daughters and their high school and college friends.
My kids like learning. They really truly enjoy the classroom and the work associated with it. This was true in K-12 and it is still true now. They don’t always love the “grind” every minute of the day, but they find learning fulfilling. This intellectual curiosity has ben a driving force and that is part of what helped them in college admissions and it is a lot of what is helping them get through the grind. I don’t think that they have necessarily sought out intellectual “rigor,” but that rigor often came as a result of curiosity, creativity, and genuinely enjoying the learning process.
Among their peers, in both college and (less frequently) prep school, sometimes great ambition seems to work against enjoying the learning process or at least it seems to have little to do with enjoying learning. This sometimes happens even when students take rigorous classes, but especially when they choose not to take risks out of fear of hurting their ambitious goals.
Both of my kids have talked about their disappointment at their Ivy+ schools in their experience in courses where some classmates are almost exclusively focused on the final grade or their ultimate career goal/ambition. Sometimes the class is still intellectually rigorous but curiosity and creativity are not really part of their peers’ decision to take the class. It is a more transactional way of looking at the purpose of education, studying, and course selection –> does this course either get me an easy A that requires little work on my part (course evals are full of such statements) OR does this course look good to some outside evaluator OR does this course help me in my career. There is nothing inherently wrong with any of those reasons for choosing a course, but they don’t always contribute as much to a vibrant learning community as the desire to learn or curiosity about the subject. I might even argue that such a transactional focus blunts the best part of “steel sharpening” – the part that is the most helpful in the long run. However, the transactional type of steel sharpening might help students learn best strategies to compete with other high powered students. That is why I personally had a semi-negative reaction to the Atlantic article. I just don’t see sharpening their steel or ambition for a high powered outcome as the most important goals of a good education. They are potential side benefits and the research is interesting in its measurement of those side benefits, but….
Yes, I would be thrilled if my kids end up in jobs that give them more disposable income (= freedom) or I guess power than they grew up with, but I don’t think that was part of my thinking when I helped them apply to high schools or when I watched them choose where to attend college. There are three main ways that I would measure ROI after they graduate. 1) Do they still enjoy learning for its own sake and not merely as a means to an end? Do they continue to read for pleasure? 2) Are they using their education in some capacity that serves the greater good (very loosely defined –it doesn’t have to be a public service career, more a “do no evil” one) and 3) Can they support themselves financially.
My feelings are similar to yours on this. I don’t find ROI a good measure of the worth of college in my assessment, because I don’t see college as merely a financial transaction. But your measuring metrics are ones I agree with.
The Atlantic article presents a novel theory – “steel sharpens steel” – on why “high ambition” or “tail end” outcomes (i.e., as defined by achieving heights of wealth, power or influence) seems to come from Ivy Plus schools…. from a statistical sense.
The article doesn’t claim that the DESIRE to sharpen themselves is WHY graduating high school seniors choose an Ivy Plus for college.
The article also doesn’t claim that attending an Ivy Plus is a “golden ticket” of any kind, whereby your life is all set once you get admitted to such a college.
Rather, the article presents a theory that attending an Ivy Plus increases the PROBABILITIES of achieving high ambitions, if you have them (and not everyone does).
Why? Because the higher LIKELIHOOD of encountering “steely” classmates at a Ivy Plus will sharpen who you are, what you know, and how you communicate, which in turn increases the ODDS that you will reach these great heights of ambition.
And why is there a higher likelihood? Because the concentration of “other hard steel” is higher at an Ivy Plus than at public flagship alternatives which necessarily cater to a much broader base.
I do understand all of the above, which is why I was curious about your question when you asked if anyone was disputing the research. I was trying to get clarification on what you were asking other posters and why you were asking. Didn’t quite understand what dispute referred to
I brought up my thoughts not to dispute the research but for the purposes of opening up a conversation beyond what I see as a moderately interesting but ultimately limited way to think about educational value I don’t think there is much in the article to dispute or not dispute. The Atlantic article isnt that engaging (to me) because it doesn’t examine the core issues that come to my mind when I think about the educational value of ivy+ or any college. But obviously, this topic of steel/ambition is super engaging to some. So carry on with the discussion!
It wasn’t you, but I found it fascinating the disputative reactions I have read on this thread so far, which typically fall into one of several categories.
“Attending an Ivy Plus is not a golden ticket” – yes, and no parent is seriously claiming that it is.
“Fat tail outcomes are rare” – yes for sure, but if you’re a high ambition kid, then an Ivy Plus increases your odds to attaining such outcomes (if your family can afford it).
“There are ‘steely’ kids at many other colleges” – yes definitely, but they are more highly concentrated at an Ivy Plus which means your chances of sharpening your own steel is higher.
There are many others themes I actually do find engaging (and I appreciate reading them), such as:
Given the high price of college, how much should ROI (and making money) factor into decision-making? Is de-emphasizing ROI a luxury that only a few can afford?
Aren’t other many other forms of “high ambition” beyond than money | influence | power? Such as a being a skilled working engineer or a valued family physician?
Do articles like this one from The Atlantic perpetuate unwise thinking for some parents and students to over-emphasize admission to Ivy Plus schools and be unreasonably deflated when admitted “only” to a fine state university?
What is the role of the college experience in forming the social skills needed to succeed in a career (and not just the academic expertise you bring)?
My biggest criticism of the “steel sharpens steel” theory is not in any of these categories. It is instead that Chetty’s paper does not review why Ivy+ grads have a higher rate of top 1% income, such as a regression analysis, as that was not the point of the paper. The paper instead only states that the difference exists. This leads to speculation about why the difference exists, rather than trustworthy analysis – “steel sharpens steel” is essentially presented as a guess that may or may not be an important contributing factor.
“Steel sharpens steel” theory is one possible explanation, but I see no reason to assume that theory is more accurate than others, such as a “selling out” type theory. As I noted earlier in the thread, comparing Harvard freshmen and senior surveys, the vast majority of seniors who end up ultimately working in finance as consulting don’t plan to do so as freshmen. Some example numbers are below for a recent class.
9% plan on working in Finance → 22% actually work in Finance
4% plan on working in Consulting → 20% actually work in Consulting
6% plan on working in Tech → 12% actually work in Tech
8% plan on working in Government/Politics → 2% actually work in Government/Politics
Something occurring during time at Harvard seems to result in students changing original plans and instead working in fields associated with higher earnings like Finance, Consulting, and Tech. When asked about plans 10 years after graduation, the overwhelming majority of Harvard seniors working in Finance/Consulting say they plan to be doing something else in 10 years. The Finance/Consulting is short-term, rather than a career. However, given that Chetty’s earnings were measured ~10 years after graduation, I expect a notable portion of this group didn’t maintain their 10 year plans and instead continued in finance/consulting as a career.
Reasons why Harvard might have a larger portion of class “selling out” by switching plans to pursue higher earnings fields than other colleges could include a combination of less barriers and imitating peers. I expect there are more finance/consulting firms in career fairs and generally having presence on campus than typical colleges. Many students also are influenced by what their peers are doing/saying. If students see or hear about their friends pursuing finance/consulting (or other fields), they are more likely to do so themselves.
Of course one could make a similar criticism to my “selling out” theory as the article’s “steel sharpens steel” theory – Chetty’s paper has no analysis, so it’s just speculation that may or may not be accurate. I suspect the reality is a good variety of contributing factors that influence different students to different degrees – some positive effects, some negative effects, and some neutral effects; rather than just a single, simple explanation. Both theories may contribute to the top 1% earnings difference, as might a variety of other factors.
The “steel sharpens steel” encapsulates the entire mindset of wealthy and privileged finance people. It is the myth (and fallacy) that places like Harvard are full of The Best Of The Best Of The Best, plus the idea that “The Best Indication Of Intellectual Excellence Is Personal Income”. The Battle Cry of the Finance Bros.
It entirely ignores that amount of wealth and privilege that goes into admissions to the Ivies and similar colleges.
I’m sorry, but a college like UCLA has just as high a percent of academically excellent students as Harvard. The difference is that UCLA doesn’t have half of its incoming class from the sort of wealth that allows a student who is “only” in the “top 15%-20%” academically and in talent to have achievements that are in the “top 1%”. A colleges like UCLA accepts equally talented and able kids whose parents didn’t have the money to boost their kid’s academics and achievements.
There are many reasons that the graduates of colleges like, say, UCLA, don’t make as much money as Harvard graduates. Few, if any, of these reasons are due to intellect, ability, or talents.
