i think its interesting that for so many college kids, the post-graduation options that continue to provide tracks are also treated as the more "prestigious" options (go to grad school. work at big3/faang, etc).
it's not because they are any more prestigious or important, but because they provide a clear sense of achievement/external validation and kids that make it to the end of college are kids that have had decades of achievement/external validation being their primary measure of success.
and because of that, those places do an amazing job recruiting. i remember toward the end of my undergrad days there was huge sense of competition to get a "teach for america" position, even among folks with no interest in education. it was appealing simply because it was selective and provided a clear framework for 'next steps'.
> the post-graduation options that continue to provide tracks are also treated as the more "prestigious" options (go to grad school. work at big3/faang, etc).
Graduate school is a mixed bag when it comes to prestige. It's fairly well known that grad student lifestyle is a grind, highly competitive, and a financial sacrifice. You go into it for a love of academics, not as a default next step.
As for prestigious jobs like FAANG: I think you're downplaying the extreme compensation offered by many of these jobs. It's not just about prestige, it's about unlocking a level of wealth that is hard to ignore. It delivers on the dream people have when they imagine a university education unlocking incredible career options.
> Graduate school is a mixed bag when it comes to prestige. It's fairly well known that grad student lifestyle is a grind, highly competitive, and a financial sacrifice. You go into it for a love of academics, not as a default next step.
Sorry to be contrary, but almost every graduate student I have met was doing it for the prestige. The fact that they were doing a research degree, the chance of having their name on papers, the fact that they were "smarter" than people who couldn't get into graduate school.
I've worked with many people who directly stated that they went to grad school because they "didn't know what else to do". As well as several who couldn't get a job, so they went back to school.
It definitely isn't always for the love of academics.
grad school is definitely a prestige move. not a 'get rich move', but def a prestige move. prestige is not just money.
for med or law school, there are very clear hierarchies about who's better than who and next steps in your career. you get money AND intellectual status.
but for other sciences and humanities, it's a flex about pursuing abstract "truth" or "knowledge" of "beauty" or whatever and not caring about financial success. it is very monastic in that people make a show of forgoing traditional measures of status in service of their "calling".
... but as high-minded as these people are there is still a very clear hierarchy that lets you compare rank/compare yourself against your other recent grads so you can talk about who's doing well and who isn't even though none of them have money.
BUT grad school for CS and engineering is different because there's so much money and employability at the end of the rainbow. these aren't really a calling in the same way, and are closer to MBA degree becayse it's just a thing you do to get more money later. A comp sci PhD with a job in industry is lauded, but those folks don't understand the deep sense of failure that a non-CS PhD feels when they have to 'resort to' an industry job in the private sector
> for other sciences and humanities, it's a flex about pursue abstract "truth" or "knowledge" of "beauty" or whatever. it is very monastic in that people make a show of forgoing traditional measures of status in service of their "calling".
These comments are oddly cynical.
The people I know who went to grad school did it because they enjoyed the academic world.
That's all. There was no flexing or bragging. Those who went in for the wrong reasons very rapidly learned that it wasn't for them and dropped out.
The mental human model that people are only what they consciously think about themselves is just wrong. Of course prestige matters, even if you were to pass a (functioning) lie detector test where you claim otherwise. You are so much more than your conscious thoughts. Your brain uses all information, and that includes the "meta" you know about things.
And...
> The people I know who went to grad school did it because they enjoyed the academic world.
What does that even mean? Where are your thoughts about the why? Why does their brain tell them those are good jobs? You have not even considered it, that sentence is meaningless in the context of your argument if you leave out such important parts. What makes things "attractive", or not, in the first place?
For some people external validation is not very important and they genuinely love and enjoy the pursuit of knowledge and have little interest in what others think of them.
Sure everyone requires some degree of external validation and there is a hierarchy in every group but all is not vanity.
I don’t think you’re wholly wrong, but if you look at longitudinal surveys of students, it presents a less rosy view. The majority select their primary motivation as getting “very financially successful.”
Now those surveys are undergrads, but considering that grad school has become more common path, I don’t see any reason why grad students would be of a wholly different mental makeup.
I don’t see it as a judgment - some people are motivated entirely by money and external validation like status, some see these things as less important than pleasure, discovery or knowledge. Perhaps those seeking money are in the majority.
Both types of people are useful but I feel it is highly reductive and simplistic to reduce the world to one motivation for all people.
1) The main point I was trying to convey is that the distribution of the types you outline may be getting skewed in one direction as part of a broader cultural shift. I think that matters, and may support the other point
2) I’ve elaborated elsewhere [1] but I think it’s a mistake to pretend there’s a relatively large group of people who aren’t motivated by status. They may be motivated by a different kind of prestige, but it’s still (at least in part) a status play.
I think both can be true. The majority of people I knew who went to grad school genuinely liked academic life so it’s natural they want to continue it.
But we are also social creatures that value status. That’s also why many people try to construe their academic careers while also enhancing their open prestige, whether that’s defined by the institution they attend, the advisor they have, the grants/thesis they pursue or any number of dimensions. To pretend someone isn’t motivated by status denies a very human quality.
Will Storr writes about this status seeking across three domains: dominance, success, and virtue. I bet if you look, most people who choose grad school value status in one of those domains. Maybe their identity is in being the smartest person in the room (dominance), or supremely competent in their field (success), or following a thesis because of what it contributes to humanity (virtue). Whatever the reason, prestige is still part of the equation.
The weird thing for me is the number of times the word "prestige" turned up in this thread. I don't remember once hearing this word used 25 years ago in high school / college / job pipeline in my friends circle. And some did go onto Ivies, FAANG, HF partners in 20s & retired by 30s, etc.
But it's unmissable how much it is drilled into kids heads now. On some of the job forums I frequent, every other week some kid is asking about "the most prestigious [college / degree / masters program / banking job / bank / team within bank / type of fund / specific fund / specific team within fund].
What's crazy to me is these kids are targeting such a narrow narrow funnel they might as well be asking about "how do I become a quarterback for a team that has won a Super Bowl in last 3 years". Like good luck kid, 1 of those seats opens up per decade (if at all), and theres 100 of you asking about it every week.
To me the whole point of a good college education is that there are thousands to millions of jobs in the field to go after. Why on earth would you fixate on a role that is basically 1-in-a-million?
Part of it is clearly the mentality of kids who have been "on the tracks" since their teens, and having made it thru a 99% rejection college admissions process think they can make into this seats. Which is mathematically literate since even limiting just to Ivys there are 1000-10,000s of you looking for finance jobs each year. So the 1-seat-per-decade fever dream is like a 99.99% to 99.999% rejection rate.
I don’t know if it’s more pronounced now, but I do think it was prevalent before. It may just be a cultural artifact of certain terminology being in the zeitgeist.
Decades ago I remember talking to a classmate about what college we’d go to. They couldn’t fathom why I decided on a “lesser” school when I was accepted into a more prestigious one. When I asked why they thought the prestigious school was a better choice, the only answer was “everyone just knows it’s better.” Now they didn’t use the word “prestige” but the same status-climbing mentality was still nebulously present. So I don’t necessarily think it’s a new phenomenon.
To your point though, in the book “Excellent Sheep” Ivy League students were queried about what kind of people they would like to be. One student stood up and said something to the effect of “we already know who we want to be. We’re the type of people who get into Ivy League universities.” I think that speaks to how much of one’s identity is wrapped up in achievement in western culture.
>To me the whole point of a good college education is that there are thousands to millions of jobs in the field to go after. Why on earth would you fixate on a role that is basically 1-in-a-million?
The view of college as a means to vocational success is also a cultural change. Previously, students were more likely to say their goal in college was to “develop a philosophy of life.”
Besides grad school, ivys largely produce students who predominantly go into a handful of fields: tech, consulting, law, or medicine. That’s even when they explicitly have different, social-status goals during school, like working for a non-profit. To me, that speaks to the fact that many are still on the “prestige” track.
It’s a good point. Buy I also wonder if there’s a sampling bias: those from other cultures who attend western universities may be more likely to have more westernized values?
Id agree with the caveat that “elite” may be the status that anybody, regardless of culture, are drawn towards. Maybe we need a tighter definition of what you mean?
Have you considered that maybe metriculative education systems, and the prestige- and status-seeking behaviors they invoke, aren’t exclusively Western at all?
You might give “The Scholars” a read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scholars_(novel)
tl;dr (it really is quite long): Famous/influential Qing-era comedy novel about “successful” scholars in the Chinese imperial education system, with much of its humor revolving around their prestige- and status-seeking behaviors. (And lots of fart and poop jokes.)
I heard that quant finance companies target high-achievers by creating a sense of continuing tracks: recruiting based on high GPAs, an application process with a high-profile entrance exam, and so on. It creates an impression among their target group that such a company is where they "should" go to work, because it's at the top.
The weird thing with quant finance is that it basically started as a bunch of misfits from other disciplines. Mostly sub departments at banks and some funds no one ever heard of.
Now its a well trodden career path with specialized degree programs targeting it, online forums full of 16 year old aspirational hardos discussing which college to apply to in order to get into job 1 which leads to job 2 which leads to.. So again, train tracks.
Old quants are an interesting bunch to talk to. Guys who worked in plasma physics or are serious musicians or classically trained philosophy backgrounds, etc.
Now every grad resume I see for job openings looks exactly the same.
I no longer deal with grad/intern programs thankfully.
Agree in spirit though I’m a bit doubtful of your details (exams or GPAs, etc). I think part of this is presenting the work as looking more like university and less like what students might imagine work to look like.
The flipside is that going off the tracks, you need to decide where you're going and you might get lost. Some people try to do something and then waste a lot of time just spinning their wheels. For them, some structure and some tracks might be necessary.
I guess we all need some amount of scaffolding in our life, at one point or another.
> the post-graduation options that continue to provide tracks are also treated as the more "prestigious" options (go to grad school. work at big3/faang, etc).
I think it's the other way around: the more prestigious option becomes the track.
it's not because they are any more prestigious or important, but because they provide a clear sense of achievement/external validation and kids that make it to the end of college are kids that have had decades of achievement/external validation being their primary measure of success.
and because of that, those places do an amazing job recruiting. i remember toward the end of my undergrad days there was huge sense of competition to get a "teach for america" position, even among folks with no interest in education. it was appealing simply because it was selective and provided a clear framework for 'next steps'.