When it comes to considering the worth of education, tangible results trump pompous prestige.

On Friday, March 29, The Daily Princetonian — Princeton University’s student-run newspaper — received a Letter to the Editor, titled “Advice for the young women of Princeton: the daughters I never had,” from alumna Susan Patton.

In the open letter, Patton shared relationship advice with her pseudo-daughters and argued for the importance of finding a husband — with a mention of one of her two sons, a junior at the university — while on Princeton’s campus. After all, according to Patton, “… you will never again be surrounded by this concentration of men who are worthy of you.”

As troublesome as its strong anti-feminist undertones may be, students of our generation should take less of an issue with Patton’s actual message and instead focus on the aura of elitism that encompasses her advice.

When considering the pedagogical value of higher education, one must question whether attaching an Ivy League title to a building full of lecture halls defines its inherent worth. In today’s climate of shifting educational formats, higher education is in flux and educational standards and results across universities appear more comparable.

While it doesn’t carry the same prestigious title that the Ivies do, Pitt operates far from the constraints of any ivy glass ceiling, with 46 Goldwater Scholars since 1990, 32 Fulbright Scholars since 2004, 7 Rhodes Scholars since 1983 and 30 Boren Scholars since 1997.

It should also be noted that this year, Pitt students received just as many Goldwater Scholarships (two) as did Princeton students.

The maximum number of awardees per school is four and, nationwide, three schools had four winners — Drexel, Montana State and Rice — none of which carry the Ivy League distinction.

When comparing the current numbers, Patton’s advice reveals a naivety for the development of universities and the shift in mindset of the current college-enrolled generation. While titles will always remain important to those who value vanity over applicability, the greatest difference between the skills afforded by Pitt in relation to the other schools is the price tag and amount of student loans graduates must repay.

The circle of prestigious titles distorts further as schools such as Pitt rise in research power and academic success. Prestige has become inflated and titles have proven malleable. What was once a neat circle comprised of eight schools is now a contorted oval of “Little Ivies,” “Public Ivies,” “Southern Ivies,” great research institutions and leaders in the liberal arts.

Patton told her readers that “as Princeton women, we have priced ourselves out of the market,” but that price no longer carries the same weight.

As a result, the current generation places less of an emphasis on title and more on accomplishment. Patton attempts to subdue her readers, commenting, “Of course once you graduate, you will meet men who are your intellectual equal — just not that many of them.” This, however, represents misguided and archaic thinking.

The National Bureau of Economic Research reported that in 1980, 14 percent of top executives in Fortune 100 companies attended one of the eight Ivy League schools, while only 32 percent completed their undergraduate education from public or state-sponsored institutions. In 2001, a mere 10 percent had Ivy League degrees while 48 percent graduated from public schools.

There is no use hiding behind sweater vests and elitist pedigrees. The figurative top of society is shifting, and college students across the country must respond accordingly.

It is time for individuals to seek out intrinsic goodness — whether that be in marriage or in higher education — to find happiness.