Ivy Leagues and Success

[UptonStellington]

I have a habit: Every time I hear or read about somebody who has done something that I find impressive, I Wikipedia or Google them, and try to find out what they were doing at my age (20).

I've noticed something. In the world in which we live today, with very few exceptions, the people I hear about in the news who are successful -- people who run successful companies, various heads of industry, politicians, diplomats, etc. -- have either received a degree from or attended an elite (or at least top-tier) school, such as Harvard, Yale, Duke, or something along those lines. Very rarely do I Wikipedia somebody who is in the news and not see that they were a student at one of these schools.

And yet, as far as I have been able to see, the people who were the titans of American industry during the most productive period of American history -- Carnegie, Schwab, Morgan, Westinghouse, Vanderbilt, etc. etc. -- some of the most wealthy and productive men in history, never went to these schools. Some of them never even went to school at all, as far as I know.

Could there be some correlation between the freedom in a society and the necessity to attend a reputable school? ie, when there is a large degree of freedom, it does not become as important to attend such schools?

Two counter-arguments to this idea immediately come to mind. The first is that schools such as Harvard, Yale, etc. only gained importance in the 20th century. Of course, it is often noted that Harvard is the oldest institution of higher learning in the US, and many of the founding fathers attended Ivy League schools, so of course such schools had been prominent before the great industrialists.

The second is an opinion expressed by one of my professors. According to him, "things were less complex in those days." But this seems like a lazy attempt to explain what is going on. How is it that feats such as inventing the incandescent light bulb did NOT require a formal education from a name-brand school but the things we do today DO?

I suppose the question I have to ask is, why does it seem as though today, for someone to become a big player in any given profession, they generally must have attended some top school, while during the most productive period in history, this was not the case?

[eriatarka]

I think youre in danger of getting your casuality arrow the wrong way round. It may not be the case that people are successful because they went to a top school - it may be that the people who are most likely to be successful (eg those who come from a wealthy backgrounds or are academically intelligent and able to get good scholarships) are much more likely to end up in top schools than the average person.

Edited July 24, 2008 by eriatarka

[DavidOdden]

I suppose the question I have to ask is, why does it seem as though today, for someone to become a big player in any given profession, they generally must have attended some top school, while during the most productive period in history, this was not the case?

Is your interest in productive people, or big players? They are not the same. If you're interested in productive people, then maybe you should think about who these productive people are, and what do they produce -- based on what? Productivity is not just a function of having a personal desire to be productive, it also requires that you know something about how to produce, and you especially have to be making new discoveries (I mean, how long can a man live off of the royalties for the screw driver?) I suggest that what has changed over time is that "new knowledge" requirement. Knowledge is hierarchical, which means that if you want to discover how to make an instant-on computer with flux capacitors, you have a lot of homework to do.

On the other hand, if you're asking why it's hard to get recognition and a position without the correct degree, this is a simple application of Tribalism 101. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of tribalists out there, wearing expensive suits.

[UptonStellington]

On the other hand, if you're asking why it's hard to get recognition and a position without the correct degree, this is a simple application of Tribalism 101. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of tribalists out there, wearing expensive suits.

This is more along the lines of what I'm asking, and I would be willing to bet that this has been discussed numerous times on this board. To rephrase within the parameter's of Eriatarka's comment: Why is it that today, those who are most likely to become successful go to these schools, rather than working, as Vanderbilt or Westinghouse, or many others, had done? Perhaps it is this tribalism. Perhaps it is this "new knowledge" requirement.

I understand that knowledge is hierarchical, and as we add on to the knowledge base, more and more education becomes necessary. But David, I wouldn't take you to think that Andrew Carnegie or Thomas Edison types are no longer possible because there is new knowledge, or am I mistaken?

If I can put my question more simply: Why the trend towards an Ivy League degree (or some time spent in such a school) as a seeming prerequisite to being highly successful today, whereas for the freest period of time in American history, that was not the case, and was, in fact, the exception?

Is it tribalism? Is it the fact that since public education is now mandatory, we tend to stay in school and make doing well there a more immediate goal, rather than going to work earlier? Is it because there is such a vast amount of "new knowledge" that we need to spend more time studying, and those who went to the best schools are generally thought to be the most knowledgeable about the thing they studied? Is it something else entirely?

[Nyronus]

Is it tribalism? Is it the fact that since public education is now mandatory, we tend to stay in school and make doing well there a more immediate goal, rather than going to work earlier? Is it because there is such a vast amount of "new knowledge" that we need to spend more time studying, and those who went to the best schools are generally thought to be the most knowledgeable about the thing they studied? Is it something else entirely?

I think I may have to side with Odden on this one on account for tribalism. Consider the two most successful producers of our time; Bill Gates and Sam Walton. Walton only went to the University of Missouri, and look out how well he turned out. Gates left Harvard and only just got his degree, yet he was on top of the economic ladder for a time. Even though Gates is the father of the computer industry, and Walton's company makes the back-bone of the lower/middle class economy, neither gets that much media credit. Gates is even an accomplished philanthropist, and that only gets him one or two TIME magazine mentions.

In the end, truth is truth. If you can gain that, it really doesn't matter where it comes from.

[Chops]

Paul Graham has an position, claiming that (at least when it comes to starting a business in computers) where you go to school doesn't matter.

A startup succeeds or fails depending almost entirely on the efforts of the founders. Success is decided by the market: you only succeed if users like what you've built. And users don't care where you went to college.

...

Mitch Kapor's (creator of Lotus 1-2-3) wife Freada was in charge of HR at Lotus in the early years...At one point they worried Lotus was losing its startup edge and turning into a big company. So as an experiment she sent their recruiters the resumes of the first 40 employees, with identifying details changed. These were the people who had made Lotus into the star it was. Not one got an interview.

Like most PG essays, it's a good one, and talks about a number of angles, with (like most PG essays) and emphasis on starting a startup. The general rule is this: Starting a business only requires that you make something people want and are willing to pay for (meaning school isn't a primary concern), while getting a job pretty much does, since HR departments put more emphasis on school than necessary.

Edited July 24, 2008 by Chops

[Moebius]

Could there be some correlation between the freedom in a society and the necessity to attend a reputable school? ie, when there is a large degree of freedom, it does not become as important to attend such schools?

I don't think it has anything to do with freedom. You are talking about an era where the population size is smaller, information travels slower, and most people are uneducated. Naturally there are far more opportunities for the capable to move into due to far worse competition.

Today education is ubiquitous, almost anybody can acquire large amounts of information in their area of interest at an extreme pace, and you are competing against other talents globally. Naturally there are far less opportunities for the young, especially if you live in a more developed society where most market niches have already been saturated by giant conglomerates with far more resources than you. For folks that live in the first world, their best shot at success is by developing completely new markets with a low cost of entry and very little competition (for instance web-based ventures).

On the other hand, when you look at the strongest of the emerging markets such as China, it is a complete wild west. The population have a huge amount of newly acquired capital, but have extremely few and under-developed consumption venues for them to funnel those cash into. A poorly educated but capable man can make his own way by finding a market niche, cultivate it, and then rapidly expand across a vast population. There is less of a need to be original because the consumption patterns have not been as clearly defined and taken over by corporate chains through economy of scale. It is just like playing musical chairs, only with far more empty seats.

I suppose the question I have to ask is, why does it seem as though today, for someone to become a big player in any given profession, they generally must have attended some top school, while during the most productive period in history, this was not the case?

The actual education aside, Ivy League can give you two things:

1. a degree that automatically conveys a positive first impression to many people. Useful for opening doors and scoring (deserved or not) respect.

2. huge amount of connections and networks. Useful in virtually all professions.

They're just tools that gives you an edge. All else being equal you are likely to be exposed to more opportunities that someone else of similar qualities. Tribalism factors in, as does our tendency to rank and organize people into social hierarchies.

[DavidOdden]

I understand that knowledge is hierarchical, and as we add on to the knowledge base, more and more education becomes necessary. But David, I wouldn't take you to think that Andrew Carnegie or Thomas Edison types are no longer possible because there is new knowledge, or am I mistaken?

No, I'm saying it's harder to become a producer based just on general knowledge and sitzfleisch. Restrictions on freedom of action makes it harder to become a Carnegie, who had a substantial employment record before he was 18. Because knowledge standards are so much higher now, it is correspondingly harder to gain the background knowledge needed to make the simplest technological advances. Remember that a key ingredient to productivity is superiority, hence the comparative aspect. You have to produce something that is technically better or produce something that costs less than what others are making; that requires superior knowledge; and where does that come from? These days, it is much easier to attend classes and learn those fundamentals so that you can get on with actually producing whatever it is you plan to produce, than to tinker with batteries, wires and spare radio parts in order to discover the flux capacitor. This doesn't mean that in principle it's impossible for a self-made man to teach himself all of the scientific background needed to create a wonderful new product without ever attending school, it just means that it is less likely to happen. Why would you shun an education? (Buried in that question is an issue about what "an education" is, so I think that it can be a good thing in some cases to shun "an education").

If I can put my question more simply: Why the trend towards an Ivy League degree (or some time spent in such a school) as a seeming prerequisite to being highly successful today, whereas for the freest period of time in American history, that was not the case, and was, in fact, the exception?

I have a factual counter-question. Do you have a concrete statistic in mind that supports your perception? I have not been of the opionion that time in the Ivy League is really all that important in determining success, but I am quite aware of the reputation that those places have as conveying automatic success. I wondered whether you had any reliable statistics on the matter.

Whatever the case may be in terms of actual success, there is a rational foundation for such a correlation, if it exists. First, success has knowledge as its prerequisite. A corollary is that it takes more pounds of knowledge to build success, these days, than it did 150 years ago, and the highly distinctive knowledge required for success is much higher up the tree now than it was then. (Consider how simple knowledge of Basic Life 101, if applied in the context of 10,000 BC, could make you the richest man on the planet). Second, Ivory League schools are superlative as pureyors of knowledge (and the methods of gaining knowledge).

Is it tribalism?

This is the non-rational factor, which cannot be denied. It is a short-cutting of the method of reason, whereby you substitute tribal affiliation for evaluation of actual qualifications. For example, imagine you have two candidates for a position, one with a BA in History from Yale, GPA 3.6 and one with a BA in History from University of Central Wyoming, GPA 3.6. They both look otherwise indistinguishable. Of course you can say "Then I would keep looking or I would cook up some clever plot to hire both and decide based on performance after a week which one gets the job", but that's not always realistic. The decision to hire the guy from the ostensively superior tribe is rooted in the idea that being a Yalie means you are superior, and more often than not, that would be a correct conclusion, or at least it has been so.

Intellectually, this is an error similar to racism. The superiority of western Europeans in technological and economic developments compared to that of Central Africans is clear, but it is a mistake to hold that this is because of race -- that is an accidental and imperfect correlation. Since in fact standards for admission and classroom standards are higher at Ivy League schools, substituting tribe membership as a criterion for selection ends up being more useful than random coin tossing, but this is only because of the nature of the rules of tribe membership.

[adrock3215]

Restrictions on freedom of action makes it harder to become a Carnegie, who had a substantial employment record before he was 18.

That is an interesting point. I read Carnegie's autobiography, and when doing so I found myself wondering whether half the things he did early in his life would be possible today. With the application of minimum wage and child labor law in current times, I submit that it would not be unrealistic to maintain that if Carnegie lived in today's world, he very likely would not have the opportunity to work as a 13 and 14 year old boy for hours upon hours a day as a messenger.

[avgleandt]

I don't think it has anything to do with freedom. You are talking about an era where the population size is smaller, information travels slower, and most people are uneducated. Naturally there are far more opportunities for the capable to move into due to far worse competition.

Today education is ubiquitous, almost anybody can acquire large amounts of information in their area of interest at an extreme pace, and you are competing against other talents globally. Naturally there are far less opportunities for the young, especially if you live in a more developed society where most market niches have already been saturated by giant conglomerates with far more resources than you. For folks that live in the first world, their best shot at success is by developing completely new markets with a low cost of entry and very little competition (for instance web-based ventures).

On the other hand, when you look at the strongest of the emerging markets such as China, it is a complete wild west. The population have a huge amount of newly acquired capital, but have extremely few and under-developed consumption venues for them to funnel those cash into. A poorly educated but capable man can make his own way by finding a market niche, cultivate it, and then rapidly expand across a vast population. There is less of a need to be original because the consumption patterns have not been as clearly defined and taken over by corporate chains through economy of scale. It is just like playing musical chairs, only with far more empty seats.

I think you have some very good points I just wanted to point some stuff out and add as well. Lower or higher population doens't determine success or amount of opportunities. Higher population actually makes more niches available to take advantage off. Ex: A guy in Manhanttan, high population area, was able to start a very profitable business fixing this one type of Doll. This business would be impossible in low population area because there wouldn't be enough people owning and breaking this Doll. I also think the game of musical chairs is a bad analogy for an economy. In that game there is a limited amount of chairs, which is not true in reality. In reality there is a unlimited potential for demand.

[UptonStellington]

That is an interesting point. I read Carnegie's autobiography, and when doing so I found myself wondering whether half the things he did early in his life would be possible today. With the application of minimum wage and child labor law in current times, I submit that it would not be unrealistic to maintain that if Carnegie lived in today's world, he very likely would not have the opportunity to work as a 13 and 14 year old boy for hours upon hours a day as a messenger.

Adrock, I agree, and I was going to add this point in, about child labor laws, but didn't want to get too bogged down in the original post.

And David, I don't have a table with which I can present you. I'm just thinking -- Donald Trump, Warren Buffet and Soros... the people who have made a lot of money and are generally regarded as highly successful, all are graduates or spent time at an Ivy League or top-tier institution. Then again, as counter-examples, I think of people like Jack Welsh, a legendary CEO, who went to UMASS. So maybe I did jump the gun a bit.

Still, though I have not entered the the full-time work force, from what I am constantly told at school, Moebius' point, that a degree from these institutions automatically gives a good first impression, as well as David's, that an employer is more likely to choose the Yale graduate when all else is equal, seems pretty valid. Of course, I have no personal experience with it yet, so I don't know whether or not that's true.

[KevinDW78]

Another thing to consider is: with what end in mind? If one's goal is to spend the rest of their life working FOR someone, climbing to middle management, then sure, Yale all the way. If you intend to be a self-made man using your own ingenuity for achievement, who cares? You're not answering to anyone except yourself.

Edited July 24, 2008 by KevinDW78

[themadkat]

Regrettably, considering I went to one of these schools myself, I'm going to have to put the plug in for tribalism. That is not to say I have anything against my school or the education I got there - I love my school and I got a great education. However, as is obvious to everyone here, you get out of school what you put into it. I was interested in knowledge for it's own sake, loved learning, took classes that excited me and that I could be engaged in, and had definite career goals in mind, with milestones I needed to achieve each year. (I'm not trying to make myself sound like some kind of super-student here, just listing the reasons I believe I was able to get more out of college. I also skipped certain readings entirely, joined a coed fraternity, and played an inordinate amount of video games.) My rationale for my claim mostly has to do with observations of the people I went to school with. Many of those were technically bright, in some respect, but weren't really anything special when it came to being a scholar. Instead, they had a lot of money and a name, partied all the time, squeaked by with Bs (one thing about these top-tier institutions, it can be terribly hard to excel but not really that difficult to get average grades with minimum effort), and knew they had a position waiting for them in Daddy's company after they left. There was even one fraternity who basically said something along the lines of, "If you join this house and you want a job in a Fortune 500 company, it's yours." And they can deliver on that promise, because of networking. Obviously a total moron is going to have some limits on what job he could have in that Fortune 500 company, but the point is he shouldn't be there in the first place, but he can be simply because he joined a house. Armies of popped-collar "sweet dudes" who are not particularly remarkable or able are already made guys with their lives delivered to them on a silver platter, largely without effort, simply because of who they are and what they have. And the Ivy Leagues are just part of it. It's like a phase of a secret handshake. It should be no wonder that the state of American business today is so poor, with companies making terrible decisions and once-profitable enterprises being looted from the inside. It's because these dopes are working there. Worst part is, my school was probably the most undergraduate-focused in the whole Ivy League; most of the others get their academic prestige from their graduate programs, with TAs teaching undergrads no different than if it was a major state university. It's all about branding. Hate to say it but I saw too many of these lamers as my contemporaries to put as much stock into my degree as I'd like.

One more thing - these schools are guilty of major grade inflation. However, it's very major-dependent. Some departments inflate their grades like mad especially in certain subjects (hello English, Government, etc.) Of course the departments I was involved with, Biology and Philosophy, did no such thing.

[UptonStellington]

Another thing to consider is: with what end in mind? If one's goal is to spend the rest of their life working FOR someone, climbing to middle management, then sure, Yale all the way. If you intend to be a self-made man using your own ingenuity for achievement, who cares? You're not answering to anyone except yourself.

Kevin, out of curiosity, how much experience do you have in terms of working in the real world? As a student at a state university, I'd love to believe this, and the people I talk to at my school are constantly telling themselves similar things. I'm trying to find out if they are true.

[JASKN]

Kevin, out of curiosity, how much experience do you have in terms of working in the real world? As a student at a state university, I'd love to believe this, and the people I talk to at my school are constantly telling themselves similar things. I'm trying to find out if they are true.

I can answer this. Please keep the following context in mind: I am 24, and as such have had only 8 years working in the "real world." That said, I have held 20 or so jobs ranging from retail, specialized trade work, general labor, and corporate work.

I'm not sure what your particular goals are, but if you have even a small inclination (read: it is probably more like a budding large inclination. At least it was for me) to go into business for yourself, you can do it, and more so every year. Business in general gets more and more specialized.

Take the trade work I did as a faux finisher. My boss started out as a regular painter in his youth. Through the years, he took private classes from a faux-finish brand that wanted people to use their products. He learned a huge variety of wall finishes, from cheap to expensive. He started small in his area and eventually grew his business into needing extra help. He hired me, taught me as we went (he was a little lucky, I'm a quick study), and continued to grow his business. In fact, he had more work than he wanted. He never went to a university, and never will.

There are so many people and businesses like that. You don't hear about them because they are small and exist in little worlds that might not be part of your own life. There are two magazines that helped me understand how big the small business world is: Inc. and Fast Company.

There are lots of good reasons to get into business for yourself. There are probably bad ones, too, but I couldn't tell you about them; you'd be better to ask someone who thinks running things himself is a terrible proposition. Personally, I can't imagine anything better.

[KevinDW78]

Kevin, out of curiosity, how much experience do you have in terms of working in the real world?

I'm not sure I understand what information you want. Like Jaskn, I have had my share of the average jobs (grocery store bag boy, Six Flags Amusement Park, department store, JC Penney, convenience store (this last one led to being promoted to supervisor and assistant management positions), at that point I had been playing with webpage development as a hobby which the last job I listed led to getting a part time job doing web development. That eventually led to getting a job offer doing web programming full time (at which point I dropped out of (a state university) college after two years of mostly a waste of time). That led to me having the knowledge to start my own web business which I did for several years, then took a full time job doing programming (by giving an insulting lowball offer to ensure I got the job) with a tiny startup web software company which after a few months of demonstrating my incredible ability, led to promotion after promotion and after two years with that company, was offered partnership by the other owners. So here I stand now as a director and partner in a multi-million dollar software company. That being said, since computer software was never really my "chosen calling" I decided to go back to school (also at a state university like yourself) to continue working toward getting my architecture degree. However, my ownership in a successful software company will allow me once I get my Masters in Architecture in 5 years to go off and work my required two year internship (on a paltry salary which won't affect me because of my substantial financial holdings), get licensed, and then take my financial holdnigs and start my own architectural firm from day one whereby I won't feel obligated to get jobs because I don't NEED the income. To quote my favorite line of Howard Roark's (which I intend to have hanging as a plaque in my studio someday) "I won't build in order to have clients. I'll have clients in order to build."

And there's my career in 30 seconds lol.

But to answer what i think the point of your question is - school (even a state university in my case) is simply a means to an end. I need the degree and training in order to get my license because the license will be required in order to have my own firm. Clients aren't going to come to me or not come to me because of what school I went to - they will want me for my designs; the work of my mind.

Edited July 24, 2008 by KevinDW78

[UptonStellington]

JASKN and Kevin: Points taken. Thank you. And also, thank you, Kat.

Kevin, why I asked what I did about your experience working in the real world was simply because I had seen your posts before talking about things in one of your classes at school, and I had no idea about your history. What you said about the person from Yale and spending their life working FOR someone, where do you get that from? Have you seen that happen with people you know or something?

[KevinDW78]

What you said about the person from Yale and spending their life working FOR someone, where do you get that from? Have you seen that happen with people you know or something?

No, I was just talking generally, not specifically.

[Moebius]

I think you have some very good points I just wanted to point some stuff out and add as well. Lower or higher population doens't determine success or amount of opportunities. Higher population actually makes more niches available to take advantage off. Ex: A guy in Manhanttan, high population area, was able to start a very profitable business fixing this one type of Doll. This business would be impossible in low population area because there wouldn't be enough people owning and breaking this Doll. I also think the game of musical chairs is a bad analogy for an economy. In that game there is a limited amount of chairs, which is not true in reality. In reality there is a unlimited potential for demand.

Yeah you're absolutely right. Although I think more so than a higher population, a DENSER population offers more opportunities for specialization. Hence the tendency for human urbanization going as far back as pre-history.

As far as the musical chairs go, I agree that there is an unlimited potential for demand. But I think at any given point in the economy there is a finite amount of established firms and industries that all compete on the same battle field. There are two paths to success -- you can either build a bigger, stronger, faster, more efficient production machine than your competition, or you develop a brand new market niche with little or no competition. The musical chair analogy refers to the former situation.