I have a theory about Ivy League (& equivalent) university students - when they are applying to universities, they take all sorts of unconventional routes - they build unconventional and creative career trajectories to stand out in the application pool. In this process, they hopefully see a spike in their personal growth trajectory. However, once they gain admission into an Ivy League university, most of them want to get into some straightjacket profession – they actively seek it. The Wall Street job with a $200k package, or a big consulting firm role or a big-tech employment is what they start preparing themselves for once they are at the University and for obvious reasons – money, responsibilities, and comfort. Unfortunately, this is where they stop growing. They get absorbed into these institutionalized organizations where they are more or less playing by the rules. They form the stable middle class that the world needs, but their role in changing the world stops right there.
For some, luckily, this role is merely deferred as they find their way into transitioning onto careers that not only pay well but are creatively changing the world. By creatively changing the world, I mean that a person must be revealing and expanding on some new facets of the world – so just reaching the top of your banking career and creating high-scale impact in something that was utterly predictable (for example, you closed a multi-billion dollar acquisition for amazon and an existing retail giant in a developing country as an attorney) is not good enough. Novelty and not just scale becomes important here. The true value lies in pushing boundaries, in exploring areas that challenge existing norms or expand human understanding/experience. When graduates find ways to do that, they not only continue growing but also make genuine contributions to the world.
When they gain admission to a university, it’s often a result of having pushed their own boundaries, with admission being just one of many rewards along their growth journey. In their admission process, they are working on exactly this playbook – they start a new company, solve important problems, write books, start an NGO, or travel to remote areas. However, once they gain admissions, they then shift focus, altering their own path, and soon find themselves feeling unfulfilled. What if they kept on the same path while also having found a way to live relatively comfortably? That is an ideal that a good institution can help one achieve.
Just as a startup incubator nurtures new ideas and provides the resources and mentorship to bring them to life, a strong educational institution offers students the knowledge, networks, and opportunities to explore and refine their unique potential. But then the money issue comes up and the promise of staying in the United States and all of the lifestyle perks associated with it. This drives people into becoming enthusiastic seekers of conventional careers. What is a way out? A way out is to consciously build a career with dual goals: seeking financial stability while allocating time and resources to projects that ignite creativity and push boundaries. These institutions are great incubators for exactly those sort of careers.
For those who have no such aspirations – and were working in regular roles and will go into regular roles, more importantly they want to go into regular roles - for them, their Ivy education was not a real one. They may have been part of a broader admissions strategy by the university, supporting its financial ecosystem. Even so, they might not have fully leveraged the opportunities and resources that this education afforded them and you can spot them when you meet a person who went to a good institution but comes across as no different from a person who did not go to one. In fact, there are high achieving, boundary pushing individuals outside the good institutions as well but the idea behind these institutions is to increase the proportion of such individuals in the society.
In discussing pushing boundaries, I do not necessarily mean it in an activist kind of a way. Not everyone’s journey looks the same, and personal aspirations and outcomes vary widely. For some, a steady, “conventional” career path might genuinely align with their goals and values, even if they attended a top-tier institution. And yes, there are certainly high-achieving, boundary-pushing individuals outside of these institutions. The mission of elite universities, in many ways, is to cultivate a higher proportion of the latter type of individuals, equipping them with resources and networks that might amplify their impact.
Typically, the rat-race types would be avoided by the better schools within a good university. These schools or departments often prioritize students who demonstrate curiosity, originality, and a drive to explore beyond conventional achievements. The real reason why good institutions might avoid "rat-race" types lies in their need to cultivate a distinctive reputation for producing leaders, innovators, and thinkers who go beyond conventional success metrics. Rat-race types, often focused on high-paying, stable careers, may achieve personal success but might not necessarily elevate the university’s legacy in the same way as those who are likely to take risks, lead change, or influence society.
The rat-race types are very good for “pipeline institutions” and within many top universities, you will find colleges that are pipeline institutions, where the primary goal is to channel students directly into stable, high-paying careers. These institutions, or specific colleges within larger universities, focus heavily on career placement, industry partnerships, and job-ready skills, creating a structured path from classroom to workplace. They cater to students who prioritize financial security and professional status over exploration or intellectual risk-taking. Even within some top-tier universities, you’ll find departments or colleges that operate as pipeline institutions, dedicated to producing workforce-ready graduates in fields like business, engineering, or healthcare. These departments enjoy short term prestige but their fortunes are tied to the industry they are providing the talent for. They need to stay competitive and always be on the lookout for competitors and the changing needs of the industry. Sooner or later, they falter on the competition and/or are unable to catch the pulse of change (quite inevitably given the general level of randomness in any system). Over time, such institutions lose their reputation as a place of discovery and inquiry, instead becoming a cog in the existing system rather than a driver of advancement.
However, when a university over-relies on pipeline programs, it risks compromising its deeper societal role, shifting from a creator of knowledge and cultural progress to a narrowly focused supplier of workforce-ready graduates. There is nothing wrong with it but by merely focusing on workforce readiness the Universities eventually lose their value in the society. Universities, at their best, contribute to society by fostering independent thinkers, developing critical insights into social issues, and pushing forward cultural, scientific, economic, and philosophical boundaries. Without universities fulfilling this role, society fails to expand the proverbial “pie.”
So think of universities as existing in two equilibria – or serving two purposes for a society – (1) growth (the “catalysts” or the “architects”) and (2) maintenance (the “pipelines” or the “plumbers”). Most good universities do a good job of both but they strive to tilt the balance in favor of the architects. A university that prides itself too much on producing plumbers is demoted to a lower level of prestige, eventually.
In the United Kingdom, Oxford, for instance, historically functioned as a pipeline institution in the UK, supplying a substantial portion of the country’s civil service talent. Many of its students were groomed with the clear purpose of entering government roles, creating a steady flow of graduates directly into the public sector. This pipeline approach served both Oxford and the British government well. While having some pipeline programs is beneficial, a university that over-relies on this model risks relegating itself to a lower tier in the academic hierarchy. Paradoxically, these universities are labeled as “elitist” and relegated into a lower order of utility and prestige.
On the other extreme, there are indeed some universities that end up challenging or upending the system without offering any real advancements – these are the non-creative disruptors, but they do not survive for long. They mistake creative destruction with just destruction. They focus on rejecting existing norms without building new frameworks, ideas, or tools that can contribute positively to societal progress. Their payoff for the society is limited. Paradoxically, they too get labeled as “elitist” and are quickly alienated.
Therefore, one needs to be very clear about their motives when pursuing higher education. Are you looking for a pipeline institute or a catalyst? The pipeline institute is a stablizer and a catalyst is a growth booster (often leading to fulfilling but occassionaly uncomfortable lives). Ultimately, the true measure of any educational experience lies in how it empowers individuals to think critically, pursue meaningful goals, and contribute to society in ways that resonate with their authentic aspirations, conventional or otherwise, while maintaining reasonable levels of personal well-being.