Elite universities stand at a crossroads in their own survival. In recent years, elite universities have faced backlash from both the right and the left wing. President Trump and the right have criticized supposed liberal bias, even using the arms of the federal government to do so, and the left have alleged that elite institutions are elitist and only reinforce the rich to be richer. Overall, a growing bipartisan distrust has beset these elite universities, with people feeling they are out of touch, even if the reasons differ across the political spectrum.
Despite the common critiques of enrollment numbers and culture war topics, one undeniable but often ignored piece of evidence of this separation between such institutions and the communities they claim to serve is the practice of career funneling.
Career funneling describes the limited range of job choices chosen by university students after they exit higher education. It has been a largely silent but undeniable trend over the past two decades. At top institutions, the rate of undergraduates being employed in newer sectors such as consulting and technology has almost doubled from 2008 to 2019. Since 2020, over half of graduates from most Ivy-Plus schools (a loosely defined group of the top 15 to 20 universities in the U.S.) have been entering the technology, finance or consulting sectors year after year.
Living within the university ecosystem, one rarely realizes how many seek jobs in these sectors. After all, these jobs carry an air of prestige. Internships or job offers at major corporations carry social value within such elite institutions, where one is expected to see a degree pay off in rich returns, both monetarily and in terms of status among peers. Furthermore, employment in these sectors often comes with rich salaries; few can fault students for wanting a stable income, especially with the rapid rise in tuition and living costs.
However, this constantly reinforced narrative of social prestige and high salaries, along with a lack of presentation of pathways to alternative careers, has ‘poisoned the well’ of career discussions in such institutions. They not only reinforce the idea that only these jobs have elevated standing and impact compared to less-explored and public sector work, but also convince students that these jobs are the only path to wealth and security. A student enters an environment where these job sectors are already exalted by their more senior classmates and is dragged into the same way of thinking by way of social dynamics and reinforcement.
Even universities are complicit in this trend. Elite universities, admitting elite and capable applicants, are composed of a rich pool of potential high-value employees for high-paying sectors to throw money and prestige at to hook prospective employees. Wall Street and Silicon Valley have often paid money for career centers to prominently feature them during career fairs, while universities, with great incentives to cultivate connections for future partnerships and build their reputation and prestige for prospective students, are more than willing to invite these firms to campus. Hopkins is no exception, with the Integrative Learning and Life Design office having a page that expressly encourages outside organizations to ‘hire Hopkins talent’ from undergraduates to PhD students, and events like Future Fest advertising with special sections on ‘Industry Connections’ with Amazon, Wells Fargo, and biotechnology firms.
It does not mean that every student who chooses to pursue employment in such sectors arrives there due to their peers or the university ecosystem, nor are people who find such employment gainful as a result of such an ecosystem wrong. To many people, these roles can feel extremely rewarding, or at least on par with employment in various other sectors. Furthermore, elite universities have numerous valid reasons to seek such connections, and students obviously benefit when more opportunities are available. Despite the excuses, the core issue remains that with such a system in place, employment in these sectors often feels like the only choice for many students, or the only ‘right’ choice for their future.
This presents a moral dilemma for students who feel pressure from peers or from the public that they are ‘selling out’ by not contributing to more socially conscious fields, justifying their choices through the points they gained from their peers and their time in elite institutions. In the end, this paradox and attempt to reconcile such cognitive dissonance leads to poorer occupational longevity and post-graduating life satisfaction among students. The lack of talent in desperately needed fields such as journalism, local and national government, and civic advocacy contributes to the ongoing erosion of democracy, as does the felt impact of elite institutions on the general population.
None of this should be blamed on the student body, who seek the best outcomes and self-worth from the limited wealth of information they know and opportunities they are presented with. Neither should the public be dismissed as ‘not understanding academia’ for pointing out this incongruity of elite institutions that promise to serve the community but have most of their student body employed by massive corporations. Even elite universities may not be to blame for such a system, which reflects a culture that values corporate profit over all else. Regardless, the universities must shoulder the burden for their own reputation and the well-being of their student body, and are the only party capable of systemic change in this echo chamber of career funneling.
So what can be done? The ultimate goal is a drastic cultural shift in elite universities back to their original conception of primarily serving the public good within the public, the student body and the university structure itself. More immediate, achievable actions include emphasizing alternative, public-facing career pathways with robust institutional support to compete with established funnels, encouraging students to explore different career paths, and publicly identifying the systemic pressure facing students to go into technology, finance and consulting sectors.
At Hopkins, the SNF Agora Institute is at the forefront of engaging the student body in civic-forward thinking, though not without its fair share of controversy and backlash. Nationwide, like-minded students are also waking up to the status quo and beginning to resist. Sociology Professor Amy Binder, who pioneered the term ‘career funneling’, is part of a nationwide network called Class Action that hopes to illuminate this issue across all elite universities and drive effectual change from the faculty and student level.
Of course, the ultimate dream of students finding comfort and gainful employment in any sector they desire may be out of reach through these or many future solutions. This is by no means to say that any of these solutions are perfect in every – or any – way. But it is an issue that cannot be ignored, not least by elite institutions facing populist attacks and growing discontent. Only through action can we begin to shift the wave of distrust, improve university and student culture and mend the gap that has widened between the public world and the insular world of such elite institutions. The question, then, is if not when, why not act now?
Chris Zhang is a sophomore from Atlanta, Ga. studying International Studies.
