They do in many ways, at least indirectly. One possible outlet we discussed for encouraging students to forgo careers in banking and consulting was financial a

They do in many ways, at least indirectly. One possible outlet we discussed for encouraging students to forgo careers in banking and consulting was financial aid. Suppose Yale instituted a policy that accepting financial aid required an agreement to forgo consulting and banking positions for at least 2 years after graduation. This would decrease the number of students who choose such careers "just because." Other students who intend to go into such careers would surely be drawn away to other fields during the waiting period. Of course, those who do not qualify for financial aid, and those who can afford to deny the aid they are offered, would not be affected by such a measure. This would warrant a consideration of whether the class divide on post-graduation freedom is undesirable. Then again, I don't think it would be unreasonable for Yale to say: "We are offering you the opportunity of a lifetime, an education at an amazing school you would otherwise not be able to afford. The only condition is that you must do something productive with it." There's also the possibility of positive reinforcement as opposed to the negative scenarios outlined above. What if Yale offered additional financial aid to those who agreed to teach/do research/pursue charitable work for two years after graduation?