The societal obsession with elite educational institutions has reached an inflection point over the past few years. One need look no further than the recent Varsity Blues scandal, in which the rich and famous attempted to buy their way into top universities, to understand the caché that admission to certain schools offers.
As a graduate of four Ivy League schools, though, I can’t help but feel “name-brand” colleges are quickly becoming outmoded. In the last year alone several trends have pointed to the rapidly fading relevance of the Ivy League-plus coterie of higher education institutions.
The first is the changing economics of a college degree. The economic landscape of higher education is shifting. Recent surveys have suggested the majority of college graduates are “underemployed” in jobs that don’t require their degrees. In some instances, community college graduates have earned salaries higher than those of their peers at Stanford and other top programs.
Yet even as returns to elite education are called into question, schools become increasingly expensive. Earlier this year, it was reported that certain private colleges have raised their price tag to more than $100,000 per year. As costs rise and benefits stagnate, the calculus on elite higher education has changed as well. Moreover, the traditional four-year college model is being challenged by the rise of trade schools, associate degrees and upskilling programs, which are reshaping the pathways to success.
The second trend is the culture war. At an already difficult time for top schools adapting to the changing economic realities outlined above — several political developments have thrust elite schools into further chaos. The Supreme Court has prohibited schools like Harvard from using the race-conscious admissions policies they had in place for years. The decision, and non-legal opinions surrounding it, shifted focus to loaded conversations around merit, DEI, and legacy admissions practices. All of a sudden, the national conversation centered around whether Ivy League school admits truly deserved their prestige.
Conservative activists across business and higher education quickly weaponized the circumstances to attack institutional DEI programs writ-large. Now, additional litigation is being contemplated after schools such as Yale enrolled fewer Asian Americans this academic year, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling.
This trend also includes the Ivy League campus reaction to the horrific terror attack on Israel of Oct. 7. Again, political forces exacerbated the dynamic when a viral congressional hearing targeting three female Ivy League University presidents exposed a lack of preparedness from school leadership. One figure in particular, Harvard president Claudine Gay, became a focal point for it all. The unfair conversations about so-called “diversity hires” or “diversity admits,” the discourse surrounding merit at top schools, and the ire of millions who felt schools like Harvard had not done enough to stem campus antisemitism.
After a right-wing campaign to brand Gay as a plagiarist, she resigned from her post. Although some have been quick to dismiss any lasting damage to the Harvard brand — and that of other brand-name schools — Harvard’s nose is still bloodied. Applications to Harvard were down this cycle. Columbia President Minoushe Shafik abruptly resigned just days before the start of the new semester as a result of reactions to the student protests.
The third trend is continued disruption of the traditional four-year program through technological advancement. This has disrupted the traditional focus on formal education and professionalism as the singular reliable pathway toward a successful future. Influencers have bypassed the traditional institutional gatekeepers across industries and Artificial Intelligence advancements show no signs of slowing down. In the legal profession, for example, major law firms expect AI to replace jobs at their organizations within the next five years. What does it mean for the prestige and calculus of attending a top law school if graduates can no longer command more than $200,000 their first year out?
The fourth and final trend has been that of schools cashing in on their prestige in ways that may dilute their brands. In response to technological advancements, COVID and changing economic realities in recent decades, elite schools have expanded into online course offerings and additional degree offerings. The crisis caused by COVID especially forced academic institutions to evolve in this direction on a faster timeline. The digital nature of those adaptations required resource investment while also normalizing alternative modes of instruction — cost-effective innovations that are here to stay.
It is arguably a positive thing for elite schools to expand access to knowledge. Yet, like with any luxury brand that evolves to target a mass consumer market, questions of brand dilution abound. The Harvard Extension School offers a prime example, with some employers still looking down on the program. And the jury is still out on how employers will respond to online degree programs that have proliferated in recent years.
The perception that more people have elite degrees, and that those degrees may not all be of the same quality, has the potential to further dilute the cultural relevance of the Ivy League and other prestigious colleges.
Kaivan Shroff is a senior advisor at the Institute for Education, a Democratic political commentator and a New York City-based public interest attorney.