Elite Schools for Rich Kids, Plus My Various Rants and Digressions
I'm too busy right now to comment further, but here is an interesting post by blog friend Atlantic Review on the state of higher education, especially in elite schools.
The post has several links that are well worth your time to follow. The general argument is that elite schools want to admit the children from privileged backgrounds to the detriment or exclusion of other qualified students from non-elite backgrounds. This is not a shock or surprise, but the extent to this is true is worth a look.
I must point out several things:
- This seems largely a matter of the undergraduates. Graduate admissions are a different story, at least from where I sit and watch. None of my grad school friends came from "elite" backgrounds; we all came from middle-class backgrounds. Nobody went to expensive prep schools (or "private schools" in the US, also know as "public schools" in the UK). We were -- we ARE -- always short of cash and looking for extra little jobs. <Digression> In some ways, I guess grad students are the invisible population of universities. Whenever people talk about "academia" or "higher education" or whatever, nobody seems to think that grad students exist. All that matters for commentators are professors and undergraduates. That's it. For some on the Right, professors are the bad guys and the students the hapless victims of brainwashing. For some on the Left, professors are heroes and the students the social engineering projects. For normal moderate people, professors are just people (well, most of them, anyway) and students are just people (well, most of them anyway) -- that was a joke! But here in the admissions debate, please remember that there is such a thing as graduate admissions also.</Digression>
- Ivy League schools are beginning to abolish "early admission." The Ivy that did this most recently (that I can recall) is Princeton. Harvard is the other one. Now no student will be admitted "early," ahead in the schedule before others. Whether this will create any substantive change is another issue. Nevertheless, the act of ending early admissions is a comment in itself.
- Lest we all forget, there are plenty of students at Ivies and elite campuses who do NOT come from rich or privileged backgrounds. A considerable chunk of the undergrad population of these schools receive some form of financial aid. Princeton apparently has a percentage of nearly 40% from what I can recall from Ivy League gossip. I'll have to confirm, though. Don't forget also that students from non-elite backgrounds can and do gain admittance by sheer academic performance. They also enter with scholarships. <Digression>This is my story: I worked hard and I got admitted. That's it. At the end of the day, the stereotype rich kid will have an Ivy degree. Fine. Guess what? So will I. Mine will even be a higher degree than a B.A. Is this not a little bit of "equality"? Is this not a little bit of "vindication"? Or, even better, is this not a little bit of the "American Dream," that an immigrant's daughter with no money or social influence can study hard, work hard, and still go to a good school? </Digression>
- I should point out that almost all schools like to admit the children of alumni. In one sense, it is rather unfair to slam Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. for admitting a lot of "elite kids" because the kids' parents attended those schools too and so their children are "legacies." Of course, it is true that this pattern perpetuates the "elite-ness" quality (the old stereotype is of the "WASP" prep-school kid). Then again, you can argue that the alumni/legacy pattern at any university perpetuates a certain type of student.
- One thing to beware in this education debate. At times I detect an odd whiff of leftover Marxism -- the implication that automatically "rich = bad" and "not rich = good." Please don't forget that rich kids can be good students too just like non-rich kids, and that we are in dangerous waters when we overgeneralize and start talking too simplistically about "groups" instead of "individuals."
- Finally, I'm uncomfortable with the idea that schools should be "engines of social justice." What does that mean? That sounds too much like "social engineering," and I don't want to be "engineered." I want to be myself -- sometimes nice, sometimes not nice, but honest. I don't want to be some kind of Ivy League robot. I want to be ME. You gentle readers have seen me "being me," and you know that I can be nice, bad, mean, angry, stupid as a stone, ignorant, funny, semi-intelligent, and all kinds of other things. But I do want to be me, not some weird version of me that has been engineered, programmed, and approved by unaccountable Nerd Lords who think they can improve me by making me think like they do. One more thing: if by "engines of social justice," you mean "more diverse," all I have to do is sigh and point you to the Cult of Diversity that is worshipped by campuses far and wide.
- Oh, OK...One more thing: in the argument about whether elite schools are "bastions of privilege" or "engines of social justice," haven't you noticed that one tiny detail has been left out? What about schools -- any schools -- as "places of actual meaningful education"? Imagine that: schools that focus on teaching and learning! How revolutionary.
So in the end? Have I anything substantive to add? Only this: life is unfair. Even so, complain less and work more. No one ever beat the odds and overcame difficult circumstances (or disadvantages) by sitting around, moaning about the odds, and demanding that some faceless bureaucratic maze change those odds.
PS: As for the familiar argument that high-achieving Asian students are suffering because of their own academic success, this is related to my previous posts on race-based admissions, affirmative action, the California lawsuits over racial quotas that harmed Asian students, and so forth. I could go on and on. But I haven't the time. All I'm going to do is *Sigh.* Asians. That's right: the problematic minority in matters of academic "social justice."
UPDATE: This next comment seemed so obvious to me that I didn't include it earlier, but maybe I should anyway. Here it is:
For goodness sakes, do NOT start thinking that, in terms of schools, "prestige = quality."
You do NOT have to attend a "prestigious" or "famous" or "elite" school in order to get a real education or to be successful in later life. From some of the "elite schools debate," you would think that if non-elite kids didn't enter an elite school, then the kids were disadvantaged forever. This just isn't true. I went to a non-elite school when I was an undergraduate, and I got a fine education. In fact, as an undergraduate you may get a better overall education at a non-elite school that focuses on teaching, rather than at a big-name school that is in love with its own name, reputation, endowment, and snobbery.
Do remember this recent post on how "dummies" succeed.
The entire "elite debate" also carries a weird whiff of the idea that these schools somehow are the magic beans needed for later success. All I have to say is, "Get real." Plenty of Americans are successful. Most of them did not attend one of these schools. Please do not be fooled by a famous name! In some cases, the name is only a shadow of its former glory. In fact, one of the felicitous and unexpected side effects of my going to a "famous" school is that I am no longer overly awed or impressed only by the fact that somebody else is from a famous school too. I can look them in the eye and say, "Well, I'm also from a 'elite' school, so we are rather equal, no? I'm now on perfectly good footing to tell you that I think your argument is complete nonsense."