{shortcode-7c329412161f8d4d6158ce86e8556577b01eec05}

Every year, roughly 1700 students enter Harvard College. We study fields as diverse as Economics and Organismic Evolutionary Biology. We explore the humanities, the sciences, and the social sciences, and some of us pursue unique programs of our own design.

And yet, four years later, more than half of those graduating students who go straight into the workforce will go into one of three industries: consulting, finance, and technology.

According to The Crimson’s annual senior surveys, two-thirds of Harvard’s graduating Class of 2018 entered the workforce directly after graduation. Of those, 18 percent went to work in consulting, 18 percent in finance, and 14 percent in technology. The class of 2017 sent similar shares of students to these three fields.

The draw of these careers is no mystery. Starting salaries in all three fields are among the highest of any industry new grads enter. Yet while so many graduates go to these industries for the money, far fewer plan to stay in these positions for the long term. In its 2018 survey, seniors were asked about their career plans for ten years after graduation, The Crimson found a stark difference between immediate plans and longer-term desires. While 36 percent of working graduates entered consulting and finance in 2018, only 7.5 percent said they wanted to still be in those fields after a decade.

Just under 6 percent of all working students said in 2018 they hoped to be in finance long term. In 2016, 8 percent of all working students said they planned to remain in the technology industry ten years after graduation. Furthermore, in 2017, only 1.7 percent of all working students said they planned to stay in consulting a decade later. In contrast, across all three years, less lucrative or riskier fields like health, arts, government, and entrepreneurship showed the opposite trend: Relatively few graduates actually entered them immediately, but large numbers said they hoped to end up in those fields after a decade.

For some of the students going into the big three industries, their choice is about genuine interest, or a desire to build meaningful experience that will help them in other fields later on. For example, many in the consulting industry go on to law or business school or those at big technology firms choose to later enter the startup world. For others, the higher pay these industries have to offer is the first, last, and only reason for their career choices.

In the absence of broad systemic change, the University could adopt any number of strategies to make other industries similarly accessible. For example, Harvard should do more to encourage the presence of industries like journalism, public service, and the non-profit sector at a level comparable to that of consulting, finance, and tech. While these less lucrative industries cannot compete with the big three in terms of salaries, they should at least be on equal footing with their level of activity in on-campus recruiting.

But all these small-scale changes cannot hope to overcome the major problem that defines this issue. The inescapable truth is that none of these other industries can compete with the big three when it comes to salaries. And while Harvard can and should offer small-scale experimental opportunities, such as better-paying fellowships in these areas, the University must use its platform as an influential institution to push society-wide reform that raises the socioeconomic status of professions like public service, education, and journalism.

I have spoken with multiple students who claim they would go into education, at least for a few years after graduation, if the pay were better. Others have mentioned charities, journalism, and public service as their preferred careers, absent monetary concerns. According to Teach for America, the average annual salary of a teacher starting the program is roughly $45,000. For students who would be interested in teaching, but who can also pursue consulting or finance jobs with more than twice that starting salary and vastly higher growth and bonus potential, the difference is determinative.

Looking at The Crimson’s 2018 survey, the numbers tell the whole story. While more than half of the working students went into the big three industries, only 7.5 percent said they wanted to stay in consulting and finance. Conversely, 18 percent of respondents said they wanted to work in the healthcare industry a decade out from graduation, and 13 percent cited academia. Harvard should look at those numbers and see in them a call for action. When both societal benefit and personal preference point in one direction, but money demands an alternative course, Harvard — and all of us — should realize the system isn’t working. Money should be a reward for doing what’s good for society and what we’re passionate about, not the biggest thing standing in our way.

Ari E. Benkler ’21, a Crimson Associate Editorial Editor, is a Social Studies concentrator in Leverett House.