By status symbol, are you saying that the Harvard graduate is literally no more skilled than the average person? Real status symbols are generally correlated with reality (the expensive car is, well, expensive and most people can’t afford it).
If there was zero correlation I think it would stop being seen as a status symbol eventually. If going to Harvard was widely seen as a status bid like buying a sports car, but the signal retained some value (like having to do an IQ test, for simplicity’s sake) then it wouldn’t matter that it was about status.
The claim that Harvard is just a status symbol is that the entire variance in success from attending Harvard is explained by the two factors of 1) the characteristics of individual people entering the program, and 2) the prestige from being able to claim they graduated.
This seems implausible—so to extend this, I’d say all of the variance can be explained by those two plus a third factor, 3) the value of networking with Harvard students, faculty and staff.
In either case, the central point is that benefit from the services provided by Harvard are unrelated to the education they claim to provide.
Employers will still want to hire Harvard students. Networking means employers won’t even get a chance to consider other candidates, and when they do, the halo of status means other candidates won’t be considered fairly.
Students already treat college as a “you are now employable” stamp machine. Yes, a few don’t. They might stop going to Harvard, news which I’m sure the other [95.5% of applicants](https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2019/3/29/2023-admit-numbers/#:~:text=A record-low 4.50 percent,securing places in the class.) will receive with joy. Employers won’t care if Harvard is the top 4.5% or the top 9%; I bet the average person couldn’t even tell you if Harvard skims off the top .1% or 10%. They just feel that Harvard is “prestigious”.
By status symbol, are you saying that the Harvard graduate is literally no more skilled than the average person? Real status symbols are generally correlated with reality (the expensive car is, well, expensive and most people can’t afford it).
If there was zero correlation I think it would stop being seen as a status symbol eventually. If going to Harvard was widely seen as a status bid like buying a sports car, but the signal retained some value (like having to do an IQ test, for simplicity’s sake) then it wouldn’t matter that it was about status.
The claim that Harvard is just a status symbol is that the entire variance in success from attending Harvard is explained by the two factors of 1) the characteristics of individual people entering the program, and 2) the prestige from being able to claim they graduated.
This seems implausible—so to extend this, I’d say all of the variance can be explained by those two plus a third factor, 3) the value of networking with Harvard students, faculty and staff.
In either case, the central point is that benefit from the services provided by Harvard are unrelated to the education they claim to provide.
Ah. Then I don’t think it matters.
Employers will still want to hire Harvard students. Networking means employers won’t even get a chance to consider other candidates, and when they do, the halo of status means other candidates won’t be considered fairly.
Students already treat college as a “you are now employable” stamp machine. Yes, a few don’t. They might stop going to Harvard, news which I’m sure the other [95.5% of applicants](https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2019/3/29/2023-admit-numbers/#:~:text=A record-low 4.50 percent,securing places in the class.) will receive with joy. Employers won’t care if Harvard is the top 4.5% or the top 9%; I bet the average person couldn’t even tell you if Harvard skims off the top .1% or 10%. They just feel that Harvard is “prestigious”.