Of course, institutions of higher education (IHEs) should think about the economic return on investment of earning a degree. But we can’t forget that public colleges also develop public leaders. Perhaps we no longer talk so much about public IHEs’ role in leadership development because we’ve been led to believe that elite privates, especially “Ivy Plus” schools, take care of that. Indeed, as Philip Bump of the Washington Post wrote, journalists seem obsessed with the Ivies.
There appears to be something to that. A recent study by three Ivy League economists argued that America’s leadership ranks are disproportionately populated by Ivy Plus grads (the eight Ivies plus four other highly selective privates). It’s true that 8 of the 9 U.S. Supreme Court justices hold law degrees from Harvard or Yale, and that prior to Joe Biden, the five previous presidents had at least one Ivy degree apiece (including the returning president, Donald Trump, a product of the Wharton School at Penn). This is on top of other high-profile private-sector leaders with a similar background: Elon Musk (Penn), Jeff Bezos (Princeton), Warren Buffett (Columbia graduate degree).
But in my recent study, I found that more key public leaders at the state level graduated from public IHEs than private universities. Moreover, they were likelier to have gone to schools in the states where they serve than out-of-state schools. And they were likelier to have graduated from flagships (their states' top public universities) than Ivy Plus schools.
I looked at some of the most important state government roles: governor, state supreme court justices, state legislative leaders, state attorneys general, and state education chiefs. In many cases, the prominence of publics was striking. Nearly two-thirds of education chiefs and 60 percent of legislative leaders went to public colleges. State justices are more than three times likelier to have graduated from a flagship public law school than an Ivy Plus law school. In fact, in 22 states, not a single supreme court justice went to an Ivy Plus college; in half the states, not a single justice went to an Ivy Plus law school.
These national figures mask something important: In a few states, like Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York and California, most leaders went to private colleges and a disproportionate percentage went to Ivy Plus schools. In fact, eight states had nearly half of all Ivy Plus graduates in leadership positions. But, remove those states from consideration, and nationwide, only 1 in 14 state leaders has an Ivy Plus undergraduate degree.
To make sure these findings weren’t limited to state-level governing officials, I studied the educational backgrounds of the leaders of each state’s top law firms. Even here, more graduated from publics than privates, and more graduated from flagships than Ivy Plus schools. In fact, in 44 states, an in-state public university can claim to be the top school among its state’s leading lawyers.
Lessons to Be Learned
Much can be gleaned from the backgrounds of the more than 3,000 individuals I studied. But five things stand out as most important for state and local governing.
First, we are obviously in a populist moment, and populism nearly always emerges when the public believes it is being governed by faraway figures indifferent to the lives of everyday people. It might well be the case that a disproportionate percentage of D.C.-based federal officials left home to attend elite private colleges and then settled inside the Beltway. But state leaders were predominantly educated in their own states and by public institutions. This foundational connection between state leaders and those they represent might help explain why close-to-home institutions are more trusted by citizens.
Second, one of the most striking findings of the study is that Ivy Plus and other private schools are only a major force in a handful of states. But those states — including California, New York, Massachusetts and Connecticut — are home to a disproportionate number of journalists, commentators and “thought leaders.” I now better appreciate why so many people with major platforms talk about elite private schools so much: because they are surrounded by their graduates. But those voices reflect a perspective very different from most state and local leaders.
Third, recent surveys have shown that although overall support for higher education has fallen, Republicans are considerably more critical than Democrats. Interestingly, my study found that the most conservative states have the highest percentage of public graduates among state leaders, as well as the lowest percentage of Ivy Plus graduates. For instance, in Louisiana and Oklahoma respectively, 92 percent and 87 percent of public leaders went to a public college. In Wyoming, Utah, Montana, Mississippi, Indiana and Nebraska, among others, zero public officials went to an Ivy Plus school.
On the other hand, the bluest states have the highest percentage of private and Ivy Plus graduates. In Massachusetts and Connecticut, less than 20 percent of leaders went to a public college. In New Jersey and California, more than 40 percent went to an Ivy Plus. It might be the case that Republican voters are angry at faraway schools seen as radically liberal but quite supportive of close-to-home public schools that reflect their values and priorities.
Fourth, my study only looked at state-level governing officials, not local leaders. But I found evidence suggesting that local communities like locally educated leaders. For example, the leaders of law firms in New York City disproportionately attended elite private schools, but the leaders of firms in other parts of the state often attended State University of New York universities or in-state privates such as Syracuse. Similarly, in Missouri firm leaders in St. Louis generally attended schools closer to St. Louis and firm leaders in Kansas City generally attended schools closer to Kansas City. If this pattern holds among local governments, it might be the case that regional public universities are disproportionately producing mayors, city council members and county executives. That means the continued closure and consolidation of public regional colleges could adversely affect the pipeline of local public leaders.
Lastly, the findings counsel state policymakers to take civic education more seriously. These schools need a curriculum and related activities that will prepare their graduates for public service. Too often of late, IHE budget troubles lead to cuts to history and other humanities courses or departments. That is a problem. We can’t have future leaders ignorant of these essential subjects. Similarly, we can’t teach students that civic engagement is protest and voting alone.
We need future leaders to learn beliefs, skills and dispositions necessary for public leadership in a democratic republic, including civility, accommodation, curiosity, prudence and compromise. In recent years, several states, including Arizona, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee and Texas, have created centers or colleges dedicated to those principles and to preparation for participation in civic life. Although these institutes have sadly been caricatured by some opponents as conservative enclaves, they have the promise to shape students into able public servants. We should support centers like these, including the development of new ones, and ensure that they are committed to rigorous academics, free speech and inquiry, and service to the common good.
In sum, then, we need to recognize the invaluable work that public universities have done to shape today’s leaders. We also need to protect, reform and improve these schools so they can shape the leaders we’ll need in the years ahead.
Andy Smarick, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, is a former deputy commissioner of education in New Jersey and president of the State Board of Education in Maryland. He currently serves on the Board of Regents of the University System of Maryland. All opinions here are his own.
Governing’s opinion columns reflect the views of their authors and not necessarily those of Governing’s editors or management.
