https://theintercept.com/2018/05/06/newsroom-diversity-new-york-times-washington-post-newspapers/
This is fascinating - and the study used a pretty restrictive definition of “elite school”. Despite this restrictive definition, the over-representation of elite school alumni in these desirable positions is very obvious. It seems like the school you go to matters a lot more than people are willing to admit. I wonder why they separated Business and Law Schools, but not Medical Schools.
It should not be surprising. The WSJ recently had an article on college values:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/school-is-expensive-is-it-worth-it-1523658384
I imagine when it comes to fields like art, social science and humanities where hard, objective tests are not readily available the signaling value can even become more prominent.
This is a problem in journalism, and in our culture. The Washington Post is my local newspaper. Many of its journalists are writing about America, yet they have absolutely no understanding of America. I feel this lack of understanding practically shouted from almost every article. As a result, they are not able to give the readers any real insights or useful understanding. They are really just telling fellow elitists what makes them feel satisfied to hear.
I mean this in a cultural way, not in any sort of political or partisan way. I am a tribe-less nomad.
I always laugh at the journalists who report from places like West Virginia and treat it like its someplace foreign and strange.
But newspapers are dying so this will not be a long term job much longer.
I wouldn’t be too sure about that. At the New York Times, for example, digital subscriptions are increasing much faster than print subscriptions are declining. At some 3.5 million, combined print and digital subscriptions are higher than ever—and that doesn’t even count the tens of millions of occasional online readers. Someone’s going to need to provide content for all those readers, and for the foreseeable future that will be journalists.
Smaller local newspapers are in more trouble, but I think the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal will be just fine.
The L A Times, the Denver Post, and many other papers have laid off a lot of people. Smaller papers have folded completely. Newspapers are not doing fine.
The same is true of my nephew’s workplace which is on a rather 'low brow" network comedy show. Why an Ivy or Ivy equivalent degree is a prerequisite for this job I do not know. But it is.
Heck much of the upper level office staff at TMZ are Ivy grads.
The NY Times always has these education articles about how Ivy League colleges are the best ticket out of poverty. I Stopped reading them - no clue about community colleges or regional state schools etc. (oh - but they do say they’re all bad and are keeping down minorities - yeah, right). And all the experts they have in their articles are also from the Ivy League. Like the professor from Columbia who italks about their research on NYC community colleges. Why not just spend some time at a CC and find out what it’s all about? You know like old fashioned journalists used to do? I figured the writers are from the elite schools and it’s all they know.
Eh. This is news . . . how?
BTW, if you Google “top media feeder schools”, you’ll see that the top 20 consists of Ivies/equivalents that have strong journalism/communications programs that are in major media centers (Northwestern, Columbia, and UPenn), other schools renown for their strength in journalism/communications/media (Mizzou, Syracuse, Emerson), Near-Ivies with strong media/communications programs in major media centers (NYU and USC), top publics with strong communications/media programs (UMich, UNC, UCLA, and Cal), other schools in major media centers that (I think) have good journalism/communications/media programs (definitely BU UMD, and GWU, though American also makes the list). That leaves only 4 schools that are elite privates yet don’t have a renown journalism/communications/media program (that I know of): Harvard, Brown, Wesleyan, and Georgetown so where arguably the name of the school (and not the reputation of the program) seems to matter a decent deal, though all of them are either in or close to major media centers as well.
In that sense, it’s similar to the “top tech feeders” list, which consists of top privates that are strong in tech, other schools strong in tech, and a few schools that benefit from being in/close to Silicon Valley.
So yes, if you want to break in to media, an elite school helps, though another way is simply entering an elite program for your field or being in a major media center. I don’t believe Emerson and UMD are terribly difficult to enter (use to be the case for AU, BU, and GWU as well, but their admit rates have dropped) and while getting in to the journalism/communications programs at Mizzou/Syracuse is likely tougher than getting in to those schools in general, it’s still not as difficult as getting in to an Ivy/equivalent, I believe.
No surprise there. See if any Supreme Court justice went to non-prestigious law school. Yawn.
I don’t think print readership is an accurate way to gauge the demand for journalists. I think writers like Ronan Farrow reinvigorate the profession and show how important it is for journalists and shows the demand is still high for good reporting.
similar for the hosts /. anchors of most of the major political / financial shows on MSNBC and CNBC.
Although many on CC want to think that elite schools only really matter for top Finance (IB, Consulting, etc.), they actually are dominant feeders to many industries (elites generically and specific schools within industries - Syracuse is a good example. It’s long been a premier school for broadcast journalism. Its list of accomplished alumni is large and it has tremendous resources to help the next generation succeed).
Going to college matters. Where you go to college matters. What you do in college matters. Yes you can do well regardless of where you go but let’s not pretend that top schools don’t provide advantages. They do. Much of it is self selective in that the top schools are full with the top kids. You would expect these kids to go on to great things. Not all, but many do. Why wouldn’t they? They’re smart / hard working, used to accomplishing many things, and are in an ecosystem full of support and opportunity. The expectation is to thrive and you’ll see these kids blanketed all over top companies (in many industries) and grad schools.
The elite are just as American as anyone else.
The issue is that the editorial boards that are always decrying elitism and how the country is becoming more stratified are part of the problem. Moreover, one would think that in order to survive and to regain the trust of the American people, the papers and broadcast stations would think to hire people that are more representative of the country as a whole and that means hiring from a more diverse set of universities.
^I don’t think hiring from a more diverse set of universities would necessarily “regain the trust of the American people”.
I don’t know why people are necessarily surprised. Are our major corporations, banks, government, law offices not led by people from elite institutions?
The article actually states it’s not elitism - these are not necessarily scions of the elite. Rather, they all showed exceptional ability in high school regardless of family background and were selected by top universities. That’s what 50% of them did, according to the article. Therefore 50% were top students at other universities. Writing for a major newspaper requires excellent writing skills and multifaceted knowledge. Also, I think the person for whom people who’ve not gone to college can’t be accurately represented unless they themselves write isdisingenuous.
Newsflash- the Supreme Court (the justices AND their clerks) are from two handfuls of elite institutions. Newsflash- when the list of Nobel prizes is posted, MIT, U Chicago, and two handfuls of other elite institutions are disproportionately represented.
What is news here exactly?
@sorghum I agree, the “elites” are just as American as anyone else. I also believe that opinions on who is an “elite” will vary widely.
But the fact is that the more removed you are temporally, economically , educationally and socially from the mid-middle class and below, the less you understand (or remember if those are your roots) what is important to that vast majority of Americans.
So when all the news for all the Americans comes down from “on high”, the view of the people below is distorted. Which is why these more “typical” Americans distrust the media. We live in an upper-middle class town, with a lot of people with college and professional degrees, and many highly educated naturalized citizens. Donald Trump carried this town by a landslide, yet the media narrative was that it was “uneducated white males” and the update from Hillary “white women who vote the way their husbands tell them to”. There was no recognition of the varied reasons in our town for the lack of support for democratic politics. The immigrants in MY town OPPOSED the Dream act, and any kind of amnesty for illegal immigrants. The most heated arguments I heard about immigration were not from white people, but from immigrant Asian professionals. Personally, I am a third party voter. But I, too, was itritated by the presumption that anyone with half a brain (or education) or any non-white person or immigrant, should naturally support the democrats, regardless of whether or not they actually had choice in choosing the candidate. Irritated enough to cancel my 20 year NY Times subscription.
Oh, yeah, I forgot, “angry” white males. That was another irritating description. The adjective was used often, but not often backed up by specific quotes illustrating the choice of adjective.