I am proud of my college degree. I was the first person in my family (parents, grandparents, aunts or uncles) to get a degree. I'm the only one to have a professional degree (juris doctor).
But neither of my degrees were from prestigious schools. I'm still proud to be an alumna of both of them because it was hard work no matter what the name or location of the school was. I made the most out of situations. I'm still paying for my own way.
So it maddens me to see this. According to this study, it still matters more where you went to school than what you did. I know this is true. Someone who went to Harvard makes more than someone who went to my undergraduate school, Eastern Michigan University. But should they? Should someone with the advantage of getting to a school like Harvard automatically be given a free pass to bigger bucks and more opportunities?
What does this mean? Do we have to perpetuate the stereotype that an Ivy League degree is automatically better than a liberal arts college degree by sending our kids to better-named schools even if we don't agree with the proposition?
I guess this changes nothing--I've always made my own opportunities and have never been ashamed of what I've accomplished no matter where the school is. But at the same time, it gives me big Class War debate fodder. How many of these Ivy League graduates are people whose parents already had it easy? How many of these Ivy League graduates didn't have to work through school or take out student loans? Sure, I know there are the exceptions, but the Ivy League status is this country's "landed gentry". But should it be?
This gal thinks not.