Who Needs Harvard?

Powell is a bad example, due to the fact that the Army is one of the most meritocratic organizations in the world (moreover, it wasn't always the case that an ROTC grad such as Powell could ascend to leadership of the world' most powerful military - once upon a time only service academy graduates would be selected - the "old boy" network ensured it).

One can achieve a fulfilling and materially successful life without an Ivy sheepskin.

However, if one hopes to ascend to the highest levels of America's plutocracy through a career path that begins in a financial services, banking, or law firm then the source of the degree - and the "old boy" network of contacts - does indeed matter.

 

Check back in ten years and the numbers will have changed. The crop of CEOs that are nearing retirement were brought up in a time when one could work their way up from the mailroom. It is my observation that this era is gone.

As we know, credentialism is here for the foreseeable future. Moreover, I suspect, sadly, that whether one attended school via residence or distance learning will at some point be used as a hiring discriminator.

This, of course, won't apply to those future entrepreneurs who by virtue of their own sweat and a little luck manage to build their own Fortune 400 firms from scratch.

 

I think that there two issues. The first is education and the other is the creation or linkage to networks of influence. Generally speaking, most universities that are serious places of learning do try to provide the education necessary for higher performance in life. Most, I suspect, achieve an acceptable standard in the educative phase.

The difference arrives in the networks of influence that can perpetuate the individual into a position where the individual can demonstrate his or her ability. Influence may come "traction" within the community because of the length of time the graduates have been serving that community. A percentage of graduates will always succeed and eclipse the graduates that have failed. The longer you have been around, the more graduates you will have who have succeeded.

Universities with students, perhaps from the poorer communities, may not necessarily have these networks initially. This does not necessarily mean that the education is of a poor quality. The networks will develop over time as some of the students gain "traction" in the community.

In Australia, there are universities that are ranked higher in status, yet the difference in educational standard is not that dramatically different, if at all. They have usually been around longer and have established histories and networks. They also have more of the research dollar because of their longer background as a university. This attracts the more able student who is interested in research.

My son completed law school at a more "prestiguous university" and certain law firms were interested because of the university
tie. The university has more graduates in the profession because it has been teaching law for over one hundred years. Some have risen to the bench and these have been promoted as university successes. Some went to prison, but the university doesn't remember them. I actually have known some of the latter!

Another university has only been teaching law for thirty years and does not have that history . It is starting, however, to have its own networks within the profession as its graduates are reaching or have reached senior partner level in mostly "new" firms.

As "traction" is gained, status is lifted, and the research dollar arrives. I am sure that Oxford and Cambridge thought indifferently of Harvard when it was a new entrant to education and research. They had been around for about 800 years (very approximate) or longer as had the University of Edinburgh.

I wonder what it was like to be a graduate of Harvard University in the first graduating class? How would they have fared with the graduates of the older universities?

 

True, but that doesn't make Powell a bad example. Regardless of how things were, the discussion is about how things are.

Either way you shape it, a Black man who pulled only a 'C' average in High School and graduated from CCNY (which is basically a community college, although a community college with some cache) and then becoming the leader of the U.S. Army, is incredibly unlikely, if not virtually impossible. It's an inspiring story for those who think that the Ivy league is the only way to that kind of success. Besides Powell, there are many other similar success stories that I would deem just as inspiring.

My point exactly.

Of course then, it only matters to those who wish to go that path. Even still, you'll find underdog-triumph stories there, too.

 

Well, I´m a Medical Doctor who graduated Summa Cum Laude in Cuba, a country that has the best health indicators in Latin America.

I´m also enrolled in the BSc. Politics and International Relations, and I found it pretty tough, although the subject guides make study a bit easier. IMHO, a British bachelor´s degree from Oxford, Cambridge or LSE will give you an excellent education, plues the alumni network(if completed residentially). Besides, the prestige factor is undeniable.

I acknowledge the Gates, Dell, etc. examples. However, there are not many Gates, and Dells in the world. For a motivated student, a degree from an Ivy League or equivalent of it(MIT, Chicago, LSE, Oxford, etc) LSE, will most certainly push him to perform better, besides the other issues discussed.

Good luck,


Joi

 

What is a "reding" list?

 

Hey! What's wrong with the University of Toledo?

 

I doubt that the earliest graduates of a brand new Puritan bible college in a postage-stamp sized colony of the British Empire had much to fear from the divinity grads of then 400-year-old prestige schools back in the mother country. After all, why would Oxbridge grads want to waste their skills on some low-paying job in the wilderness when there were grad school and professorates or priesthoods and bishoprics to be had back home?

 

Entrepreneurs are not "great examples" of "rising to the top." Entrepreneurs hire themselves as presidents of their own companies and so do not worry about whether "the boss" (they themselves) will hire them, even without a degree.

 

I feel compelled to point out that if you admit only a fraction of the top one percent of potential students, you could actually be offering a terrible education to the student body and nobody would be the wiser, both figuratively and literally...

Dave

 

Nothing at all, it gave some people the training and credentials to use as a springboard to corporate leadership. That's my point. Hey, I went to Wichita State for undergrad, the "U of Toledo" of the Heartland.

 

A side note to fellow Army vets and nitpickers

[I know aviation, air defense artillery, and engineers are also combat arms branches, but that doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming majority of Chiefs of Staff are drawn from infantry, armor, and field artillery - hairy-chested branches for which baccalaureate academic performance requirements aren't as high]

 

See, I agree with your point about the Armed Forces structure, the breaking down of barriers, and how they relate to favorable chances for the underdog. I agree 100%.

However, a Black Man in America whose grades were nothing impressive, graduating from what can be considered a community college and finally becoming the leader of the U.S. Military... this certainly can't be considered a common possibility.

 

Then you simply don't appreciate how the Army's promotion system was designed to work in the 1970s and 1980s. The Army made real efforts to address institutional racism in its promotion boards by systematically identifying and promoting black officers who had succeeded in combat (Powell had *five* tours in Vietnam). Powell was promoted to Lieutenant Colonel by the time Vietnam was over.

With respect to Powell's academic career, it should be noted that it didn't end at CCNY - he later took an MBA from GWU...at Army expense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powell

In short, as a reaction to the heightened racial tensions in the services at the end of Vietnam, the Army began conferring support and opportunities for advancement of blacks, support mechanisms that were not present in civilian corporations during that period.

Powell himself credits the role that Army institutional support played in his advancement.

 

I am not sure I understand you, Dave. You mean that worse students contribute as well to the education of those very gifted students and their lacking in the school would be noticeable? Probably that is true in the figuratively sense you indicate, but in the pure academic sense, worse students are dead weight attached to the neck of better students. I belonged to the former and I know it full well. My wife graduated in America from a normal university, and then she went on to the LSE with teachers that are all the time on TV, and are well known specialists, etc. However, she insists that she received better education at that average university in America. I don’t know exactly why. But the friends and contacts she made in London in that university are of a substantially different quality. And, I mean, brutally different.

 

I mean it's the collection of rats and not the maze or the cheese.

Dave

 

Yes, I also see it like that. It is after all the people who make a difference.

 

You'd have to clarify why you think that, because I don't remember making any indication of the sort. I certainly appreciate what the Army has done to promote inclusion, and I think the Armed Forces is better off for having done it.

Yes, but he was climbing the ranks years before that. I'm sure his MBA helped his resume look better, but he'd gotten pretty far already just having a CCNY degree.

As I was saying earlier, I agree with your point; but let's not believe for a second that there are many others traveling a similar path as Colin Powell's who will turn out to be in Colin Powell's position or a comparable one in Government. In an ideal world this could be the case, but for now this is going to remain a unique story.

 

And since there are lots of people in the Army at any given time and only one person in control of the whole Army at any given time, that's a no-brainer. Same's true of any other organization.