Two heated discussions were sparked by the June Supreme Court decision that virtually prohibited universities from using racial preferences in their admissions process. While the decision's impact on opportunity equality was the main topic of conversation, a more intriguing debate centered on whether or not a small number of elite schools received undue scrutiny.

Only 6% of American undergraduates attend schools with an acceptance rate of less than 25%. Hence, the great majority of students are not affected by these discussions. In addition, studies that attempt to measure the societal benefits of graduating from highly selective universities must catch up. Graduates of these schools may earn more than average after they find work. Still, it's crucial to remember that they had already excelled academically in high school to gain admission to these prestigious universities.

Stacy Dale and Alan Krueger of Princeton University found that going to a more prestigious school did not, on average, result in more excellent wages for the graduate than going to a less prestigious school. This data demonstrates that attending prestigious schools like Harvard and Yale may not significantly improve a person's future earnings. Instead, they might let in people who are practically guaranteed to succeed thanks to their intrinsic talent and drive.

But a new working paper written by Harvard's Raj Chetty and David Deming and Brown's John Friedman questions this view. The report, published on July 24th, analyzes a massive dataset of individual income tax forms, state and federal financial aid applications, standardized test results, and individual university applications.

Researchers used this all-encompassing method to observe the high school careers and subsequent lives of 2.4 million applicants to selective universities between 2001 and 2015. Their research provides convincing evidence that students should work hard to improve their academic profiles to gain admission to prestigious universities, as doing so almost ensures entry into the upper echelons of the American middle class and professional workforce.

The report also draws attention to the disproportionate admittance of students from affluent backgrounds due to preferences offered by major colleges, such as admissions preferences for “legacy” students (children of alumni), sports, and those from private high schools.

This, in turn, disadvantages underprivileged students who are otherwise well-qualified and may succeed tremendously after graduation. The abolition of such rules may foster a more socioeconomically varied and intellectually fertile elite class.

The White House, it should be noted, has taken note of the paper's conclusions. Chetty and Deming's employer, Harvard University, is under scrutiny for potential civil rights violations related to the university's admissions policies.

Universities that fall into the “Ivy-plus” category are considered a primary focus of the research, along with “other highly selective private colleges” like Caltech and New York University and “highly selective flagship public colleges” like the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Michigan. Analyzing data from 1967 reveals that a sizeable percentage of Supreme Court justices, Fortune 500 CEOs, and current senators are alumni of Ivy League or other elite universities, demonstrating the influence of these graduates on positions of power and money.

Although separating the actual impact of attending these universities from selection effects is complex, the study uses cutting-edge approaches. Analysis of admitted wait-listed students is one possible strategy. The study sheds light on the effect of these establishments by contrasting the outcomes for those who were admitted with those who were not. Attending a top-tier university, such as one of the Ivies, does matter greatly, especially for the most successful alums. By age 33, these people have a better chance than their peers from top public colleges to be among the top 1% earners.

In conclusion, the discussion over highly selective universities has implications beyond the classroom. Questions of fairness, privilege, and opportunity arise from the complicated connections between these institutions and social mobility. To ensure that the pursuit of knowledge continues to drive positive change on a larger scale, the results highlight the need to balance retaining academic achievement and fostering social inclusion as policymakers struggle with these concerns.

################

We value your opinion! Please take a moment to share your thoughts by filling out our brief survey linked below this article.