Prestige, neoliberalism, and higher education: examining U.S. college students’ understandings of and socialization toward institutional prestige 

New Series, Vol. 2, No. 13

Drew T. Ashby-King interviewed 32 college students at various institutions to illuminate their understanding of and their exposure to discourse surrounding institutional prestige during the admissions process. College and university rankings (e.g., U.S. News and World Report Best College Rankings) are one predominant reflection of institutional prestige, but do not always reflect the quality of education offered by these prestigious institutions. However, as college became more accessible to historically marginalized communities, these same institutions were motivated to engage in prestige-seeking behaviors to position themselves as superior to other institutions and attract students. 

Institutional prestige is intangible, but communicates high-value, and sense of social status for those affiliated with the institution, to the public. It is a status structure comprised of associations with perceptions of excellence and high cultural, symbolic, or historical value. In addition to rankings, prestige can also be understood through classifications (e.g., Carnegie Classifications), affiliations (e.g., membership in the Association of American Universities), and other factors like the success of and division an institution’s athletic programs are in (e.g., NCAA Division I), selectivity, research output, and resources. Institutional prestige is also socialized through messages from close others (e.g., parents), in the media, and in institutional advertising.  

Higher education has become a key social mobility mechanism, rather than a pursuit of the elite, and institutions are consequently driven by market forces that compel them to attract successful and wealthy students to enhance their reputation. Neoliberalism is a theory that suggests society is organized by market logics and relations that privilege “deregulation, privatization, and consumerism” and education is no exception to this frame. Neoliberalism also holds that any individual can be successful regardless of their background (e.g., race, gender, socioeconomic status) if they simply work hard enough and disregards sociopolitical context.  

This study is further guided by Bourdieu’s concepts of field, habitus, and capital where field refers to a network of institutions that (re)produce power and hierarchy (e.g., educational systems); where habitus refers to one’s own values and understanding of the world as a result of their background and unique experiences; and where capital refers to any (in)tangible resource that reflect power relations within a given field. Anything that confers power can be considered capital and both cultural and social capital are forms of symbolic capital that allow a person to “effectively operate” within their culture, require a classification system defined by exclusion, and for which transmission is usually invisible. Thus, prestige is a form of symbolic capital for students who attend prestigious institutions as it is widely believed that such affiliation will lead to success postgraduation. 

Participants were between the ages of 18 and 22, 13 men, 18 women, and one trans/nonbinary individual and were racialized as white (21), Black/African American (3), African American (1), Ethiopian American (1), Asian (1), Asian American (1), South Asian (1), white/Hispanic (1), mixed race (1), and biracial (1). Participants include one freshman/first-year, 10 sophomores, 10 juniors, and 11 seniors. The sample, recruited through the author’s professional network, was noted as a limitation of this study in addition to the focus on the admissions process. Interviews lasted between 35 and 60 minutes, with an average length of 50 minutes, and resulted in a total of 1,618 minutes of audio data and 429 pages of single-spaced data. All but two participants also completed a post-interview questionnaire that resulted in an additional 21 single-spaced pages of data. Critical thematic analysis, a two-step process characterized by inductive open-coding followed by deductive closed-coding, and reflexive thematic analysis were used to analyze the data through familiarization, initial coding, theming, reviewing, defining and naming themes, and compiling the findings.  

Generally, participants’ understanding of prestige aligned with predominant social understandings as discussed above (e.g., a pathway to success; socially constructed; associated with selectivity, wealth, and opportunity). Participants also identified their parents, peers at school, and the media as significant socialization forces shaping their understanding of prestige. However, participants also challenged the value of prestige and often expressed that the quality of education was similar at institutions considered less prestigious and placed a higher value on earning a degree rather than attending a prestigious institution. They also noted that not all individuals who attend prestigious institutions are guaranteed success, limiting their value and cost-effectiveness. Participants were also more focused on individual needs and outcomes such as program quality, credibility, and networking opportunities when considering which colleges or universities to attend and believed they could achieve similar outcomes regardless of institutional prestige.  

The author suggests that instructors, and other college and university personnel, have opportunities to resist habitus and Neoliberalism through critical communication pedagogy, a dialogical pedagogical approach characterized by partnership between teachers and students and collective effort toward a fruitful learning community. Specific practices for instructors include transparency and “ungrading” that invites students to critically assess their own learning. Recommendations for advisors include guiding students toward courses of interest beyond those that benefit their desired career rather than easy courses toward the goal of credit completion. Finally, the author also suggested that institutions should consider communicating alternative aspects of their value beyond return on investment in the form of job placement and opportunity. 

Communication Currents Discussion Questions 

For additional suggestions about how to use this and other Communication Currents in the classroom, see: https://www.natcom.org/publications/communication-currents/integrating-communication-currents-classroom 

ABOUT THE AUTHORS  

Drew T. Ashby-King is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at East Carolina University. 

This essay, by R. E. Purtell, translates the scholarly journal article, D. T. Ashby-King (2025). Prestige, neoliberalism, and higher education: examining U.S. college students’ understandings of and socialization toward institutional prestige. Communication Education, 74(2), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2024.2449054 

The full copyright and private policy link is available at natcom.org/privacy-policy/