I’m sharing with you all a very interesting opinion essay by a Yale Alum in a tirade against Elitism supposedly fostered by prestigious (in this case, specifically Ivy League) schools:

http://www.theamericanscholar.org/su08/elite-deresiewicz.html

If anyone has thoughts on this, I welcome the discussion. Just for myself, as an intellectual exercise from a debate with a friend, I’m putting down this blog:

Reactions, almost point by point (I am typing as I read, and have taken the liberty of quoting in >>)

====================================================================

<Visit any elite campus in our great nation and you can thrill to the heartwarming spectacle of the children of white businesspeople and professionals studying and playing alongside the children of black, Asian, and Latino businesspeople and professionals. >

Bullshit. There are plenty of people whose parents are immigrants, middle class, lower class, non-elite professionals etc. For people whose parents are researchers here, or in academics, it’s a cruel process and there is almost no way to fudge it beyond dedicated work. In addition, if as many people are getting “free rides” at Ivy Schools as they claim based on financial aid, these are examples of low-income families living out the American Dream.

However, one question to ask is about actual statistics of percentages of wealth and class for enrollment at Ivy schools (and MIT?). Is it the majority? I don’t know. But from Bush’s example, if you *are* rich, you sure can buy your way in…

<My education taught me to believe that people who didn’t go to an Ivy League or equivalent school weren’t worth talking to, regardless of their class. >

This might be what he got out of his Ivy League education, but I feel like it is a short-coming of his own mind. At MIT, and I think at a good number of other schools, students are more aware of the world — especially those who aren’t from the upper class.

I feel like this author is biased in terms of his own experiences. Perhaps if he had ventured out of his own Elistist group of friends and acquaintances at Yale and Columbia (not the whole school, mind you, just his particular group of friends), he would have seen completely different things going on.

On the other hand, maybe I am being too harsh, although he is ignorant, at least he has come to realize it — a product of the times? Diversity, public awareness, international awareness has increased dramatically over the past years. One example is the increasing focus on international development and international amnesty work. He is not giving schools now enough credit. But MIT is ahead of the game anyways. I take pride in saying we are a true meritocracy. George Bushes of the world be damned (not to digress, it is understandable and in keeping with their goals for elite liberal arts schools with gears towards politics/business to accept students with “prestigious backgrounds/connections”. They are, after all trying to increase the diversity of their population in political terms as well as ethnic, gender etc. However, the point is that this is NOT “merit” in the purest sense).

<I never learned that there are smart people who don’t go to elite >colleges, often precisely for reasons of class. I never learned that >there are smart people who don’t go to college at all. >

Unfortunately, this does need to be emphasized in ivy League/”prestigious” educational institutions (MIT as well, even though we are not Ivy league). I came to understand and believe the concept that “smart people don’t have to go to college” through my experience in MIT D-lab. Because it was international development work in a very hands-on way, and taught by Amy Smith who has done no little on the ground work herself, it was emphasized to us again and again how poor people are innovators and great collectors of knowledge. In fact, we not only *should* listen to, but *must* listen to them.

I also recently attended a talk by Anil Gupta, founder of the Honey Bee Network, which connects rural innovators and helps them spread their inventions. These so-called uneducated peons have come up with thousands of inventions, including things even Chemical engineers can’t figure out, such as a clay plate with a non-stick coating that doesn’t come off.

<The physical form of the university—its quads and residential colleges, with their Gothic stone façades and wrought-iron portals—is constituted by the locked gate set into the encircling wall. The gate, in other words, is a kind of governing metaphor—because the social form of the university, as is true of every elite school, is constituted the same way. Elite colleges are walled domains guarded by locked gates, with admission granted only to the elect. >

MIT: 1, Ivy Leagues: 0 !!! Woot, we have an open campus, bi-atch. And OCW. Also, although we have ’secret societies” (arguably ‘hackers’), they are open to whoever is truly interested, and not based on economic or social status.

>Graduates of elite schools are not more valuable than stupid people, or talentless people, or even lazy people. >

I get his gist, but this is not accurate. Some of us are more valuable, in terms of educational depth or breadth. It doesn’t mean we are “smarter’ per se, or “better” people, but to say we are definitely not more valuable is an exaggeration.

<An elite education not only ushers you into the upper classes; it trains you for the life you will lead once you get there…In other words, students at places like Yale get an endless string of second chances. Not so at places like Cleveland State. >

I have to agree with this to some degree: people with more opportunities are more coddles. That’s why there is still a “I went to public school, bitch” group on Facebook. We’re proud of not having as many ‘chances’ and ‘resources’ and ‘guidance’ as private schools, but making it anyways, through our own self-reliance, resourcefulness, will. However, this does not make these last things bad, merely fortunate. The real question might be to *appreciate* it — not take it for granted, to recognize these as privileges, but not rights. I think this should have been his his point here, instead of railing bitterly at good things.

<The elite like to think of themselves as belonging to a meritocracy, >but that’s true only up to a point. Getting through the gate is very >difficult, but once you’re in, there’s almost nothing you can do to get kicked out. >

MIT: 2000 Ivy leagues: 0 How many sleepless nights, boys and girls? ‘Nuff said. I’m sure Ivy League is difficult, particularly in some departments, but I have no doubt MIT as a whole is hell of a lot more hardass. I have a friend at Brown. She’s having a blast, and she claims to have lots of papers, which I have no doubt are graded rigorously. But in all honesty, if she has time to sleep and do a shit load, how much time do they have at Brown, compared to us? Not a judgment, just an observation…

<The feeling is that, by gosh, it just wouldn’t be fair—in other words, >the self-protectiveness of the old-boy network, even if it now includes girls…Anyone who remembers the injured sanctimony with which Kenneth Lay greeted the notion that he should be held accountable for his >actions will understand the mentality in question—the belief that once you’re in the club, you’ve got a God-given right to stay in the club. >

As anyone with half a brain can clearly see, this is not a problem so much with “Ivy League” education, or prestigious education — but the “old boys” network, the elitism within these so-called elite institutions. In other words, Yale seems to be less at fault for this type of thinking and behavior, than upper class entitlement, from elite groups like the Cross and Bones Society.

<An elite education gives you the chance to be rich—which is, after all, what we’re talking about…but what are such losses when set against >opportunity to do work you believe in, work you’re suited for, work you love, every day of your life? >

Again, this may not be so relevant to MIT. However, it is true that a little less than half of all MIT students graduating go to Wall Street. I encourage those who are interested to read President Faulkner (of Harvard)’s baccalaureate speech this year (http://harvardmagazine.com/web/commencement/faust-baccalaureate-address-2008). It addresses just this issue: the difficult dilemma that faces many of us when choosing between job security/money/prestige and other markers of “success” as defined by society and somewhat connected to our self-worth, and the need to do something meaningful, to make the intonations of “you are the future leaders” echoes at commencements all over the country at the most elite and prestigious schools, not just a hollow statement, but reality. I have been personally struggling with this in thinking about future career choices, but here is where I disagree with the statement as too stark, too closed-minded:

Although an elite education does give you the chance to be rich, it is not true that economic comfortability or even wealth is mutually exclusive with fulfillment of the soul, although it takes courage to both think about it and to not deceive yourself when the choice comes. True, you might wonder whether certain work is “beneath your education” if it lacks the prestige or money society so revered. On the other hand, it is not true that we are not equipped to fight this temptation, and use rationality to convince ourselves that social constructs are merely social constructs. Again, I give no judgment as to the choices people make, my only point is that there ARE choices, and a prestigious education does not necessarily doom you to pompous arrogance or entitlement.

His next point:
<This is not to say that students from elite colleges never pursue a riskier or less lucrative course after graduation, but even when they do, they tend to give up more quickly than others…students from elite schools expect success, and expect it now. They have, by definition, never experienced anything else, and their sense of self has been built around their ability to succeed. The idea of not being successful terrifies them, disorients them, defeats them. They’ve been driven their whole lives by a fear of failure… >

This is not relevant to MIT. I think here, it is the very opposite. Two thoughts. Most of us fail something at MIT, so this point is moot. Yes we have terrible problems dealing with it, but at least the crucible, the crisis happens *here*, so that when we graduate we are more resilient than ever, and aware of our un-invincibility, but also what to do about it.

<The true purpose of education is to make minds, not careers.>

Amen to that, although education for career is not wrong. In any case, again, I don’t think MIT has failed, to the contrary. Read the next line: “Being an intellectual means, first of all, being passionate about ideas” — this is what we do, and proud of it. He also makes a case about elite schools giving “vocational” training. This is a fuzzy issue for a Tech school, so maybe out of context, since MIT is “vocational”, although I still argue that with some of its emphasis in the humanities, MIT has been trying to put our vocations into context.

<I’ve been struck, during my time at Yale, by how similar everyone looks. You hardly see any hippies or punks or art-school types>

Ha, well, you see plenty of weird people here…for once, in the face of this ripping essay on elitist colleges, a comforting thought

Cheers,

Mary