How Elitist Views Are Undermining Career-Ready Reforms

Over the past month, I have read a few articles that tried to build arguments that higher education has become a place of “extreme careerism.” The argument isn’t coming from outside higher education—- it’s actually coming from within. Faculty across disciplines have raised concerns that universities are too focused on preparing students for careers at the expense of fostering intellectual exploration, creativity, and inquiry. To them, the increasing emphasis on internships, career-oriented curricula, and workforce readiness feels like the ultimate betrayal of what higher education is supposed to be.

This sentiment is deeply flawed. It romanticizes a vision of college that assumes students have the privilege to view their education as a time of personal exploration without the burden of post-graduation realities. However, for many students, particularly first-generation, low-income, and working professionals, college isn’t a time to explore in a “dream world”. It’s a sacrifice and an investment that must pay off.

Dismissing this as “extreme careerism” is not only out of touch with today’s learners, it also undermines the student-centered progress higher education has made over decades.

A Romanticized View of Higher Education

The critique of careerism is rooted in an idealized vision of higher education. This vision stems back to the earliest days of the American university system when the first colonial colleges (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and others) served as finishing schools for the elite. These institutions weren’t concerned with preparing students for jobs. They existed to turn boys into gentlemen and impart moral and intellectual growth. This model was built on privilege. These institutions served wealthy white men whose futures were secured by family wealth and connections. College wasn’t about landing a job. It wasn’t even about graduation.

As higher education expanded by creating land-grant universities, community colleges, and public institutions, its mission evolved. These institutions were designed to serve a wider population by providing education and training that aligned with the needs of the societal workforce. Producing skilled workers was central to their purpose. Community colleges trained nurses and mechanics. Land-grant universities educated farmers and engineers. The system we know today was built on the idea that education should be a pathway to opportunity.

The Elitism of the “Anti-Careerism” Argument

Labeling career preparation as “extreme careerism” is a profoundly elitist argument. It assumes that students should view college as a time of intellectual play and personal exploration. This idea only works for those who have financial safety nets or social capital to fall back on. Consider the realities of today’s student population. Many are first-generation college students. Many are working adults or parents. Many are saddled with student loan debt. First-generation students and students of color often face significant pressure to make college “count.” Their families and communities rely on them to succeed, and their success is often measured by their ability to secure a stable job after graduation. For these students, career readiness isn’t an optional bonus—it’s the point. Their investment of time, money, and energy must pay off in tangible ways. To dismiss their career-focused priorities as “extreme” is to dismiss their lived realities.

Additionally, when faculty critique “extreme careerism,” they often imply that career-focused education is antithetical to exploration or personal growth. This is a false dichotomy. Career preparation does not exclude intellectual curiosity—-it makes it accessible. For many students, the ability to dream depends on their education leading to a stable, well-paying career.

Reducing the Hard Work of Universities

This critique also downplays the complex work colleges and universities have done to center student needs. Internships, career services, and industry partnerships are not distractions from higher education’s mission—- they are extensions of it. These initiatives make education accessible and relevant for our diverse student population. They ensure that students graduate not just with knowledge but with the skills and connections to put that knowledge to use.

Dismissing this work as “extreme careerism” erases the progress higher education has made in becoming more inclusive, equitable, and student-centered. It suggests that colleges should revert to an outdated model of education that serves only the privileged few.

The danger of the “anti-careerism” argument is that it risks taking higher education backward. By prioritizing intellectual exploration over career preparation, colleges risk alienating the very students they claim to serve. This is particularly true for first-generation students, low-income students, and students of color, who often view higher education as a pathway to economic stability and social mobility.

We must also acknowledge the historical context. Career preparation has been baked into the mission of American higher education since the expansion of access through land-grant universities and community colleges. To reject this focus now is to reject the progress we’ve made in making higher education accessible to all.

Reimagining the Debate

Instead of critiquing career-focused curriculum, faculty should embrace it as part of a broader, student-centered mission. The challenge for higher education is not to reject careerism but to integrate it thoughtfully. We must design curricula that prepare students for the workforce while fostering critical thinking, creativity, and curiosity. We must ensure that career readiness is not just about technical skills but about developing the whole person.

Ultimately, the debate over “extreme careerism” reflects a tension between two visions of higher education: one that serves the few and one that serves the many. If we are serious about equity, inclusion, and student success, we must reject the elitist critique of careerism and continue building a system that meets students where they are—and takes them where they want to go.