<p>Thanks for posting this, the two-horned monster of narcissism/solipsism is perhaps the most pressing dilemma one encounters at the elite of elite institutions, yet no one generally prepares kids this is what’s coming, and little ethical foundation is offered to counter the often debilitating effects of such environments. (IMHO)</p>
<p>^ Well said, PelicanDad!!</p>
<p>+1 on the thanks for posting this.</p>
<p>One quote in particular struck me as very “St. Andrew’s” (in that it reminded me of the way Tad Roach speaks about the school’s mission):</p>
<p>“There is a big difference between a culture that encourages engagement with the world and one that encourages developing one’s own superiority.”</p>
<p>Brilliant article. </p>
<p>I just interviewed a Rhodes and a Marshall scholar for an upcoming article - both came from normal 99% backgrounds. And as I think my last few years of college interviews - the most compelling students did too.</p>
<p>Not to say that 1% students aren’t compelling but there’s something to be said for having to push against obstacles to achieve a goal.</p>
<p>I had the opportunity to compare candidates from an elite private school - (with the standard and ubiquitous resume of science related clubs etc. and an attitude that assumed they were on the top of the heap) - with students from a nearby public school (same ethnic group) that routinely turned out amazing talent - most of whom were from solidly middle class or lower homes. The kids in schools with no resources that went out and found them. The ones without teams that took it upon themselves to find a coach and create a team or activity.</p>
<p>Attitude is everything.</p>
<p>My recent interviews really gave me some hope that the right people will eventually take over the world given access to the right resources and enough time.</p>
<p>Completely agree with Pelican Dad, although do not agree with the article at all! Unfortunately my hometown paper likes to come up with articles like this. It completely undermines the previous article they had on the 1% - <a href=“The 1 Percent Paint a More Nuanced Portrait of the Rich - The New York Times”>www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/business/the-1-percent-paint-a-more-nuanced-portrait-of-the-rich.html?pagewanted=all</a>
which discusses the geography of the 1%, with Stamford being the highest $amt to be in the 1% (900+K), Atlanta around 350K, etc.
If we take those numbers into consideration, then compare them to the cut off for financial aid at most colleges of 250K, then we look at the top college breakdowns of students on financial aid - bet 65-85%, then the only conclusion we can come up with is that actually it’s not the 1% of the wealthiest students that make up the majority of these institutions.
I do agree with the article about the fact that the 60K and below group is underrepresented in colleges.</p>
<p>I agree and disagree with the article. </p>
<p>The elite college chase, as currently constructed, encourages a sort of Potemkin village. The 1% may have more money to throw at the problem, but don’t underestimate everyone else’s ability to read between the lines, and game the system. I know many families who aren’t the 1%, who are following the high pressure/high activity/exotic trip model of preparing for college. It’s exhausting. In my opinion, it’s counterproductive. For too many students, the worthy things they do become something they do to impress other people–not something they do because they want to.</p>
<p>It should be possible for students to work to their capacity–that is, to receive a less than stellar grade as feedback which can lead to productive improvement, rather than an attack on the potential to attend college. I also think that creativity is not fed by ceaseless activity. Are we robbing our children of opportunity to experience the reflection which leads to insight? If you’re busy, you’re never bored. That isn’t a good thing. </p>
<p>A friend, long ago, referred to the sort of children propped up by resume stuffing as, “pretty ponies.” Do pretty ponies have the ability to work, once their support staff’s been dismissed?</p>
<p>We have a society that prizes the aristocratic over the noble. Until that is reversed we’ll always have the problems of the “1%”. Akin to the question: “When will the power of love overcome the love of power?”</p>
<p>As to the 1% vs. the 99%…</p>
<p>“If that the heavens do not their visible spirits
Send quickly down to tame these vile offenses,
It will come,
Humanity must perforce prey on itself,
Like monsters of the deep.”</p>
<pre><code> “King Lear”, Act IV, Sc. II, lines 52-56
</code></pre>
<p>Periwinkle - those “hyper exotic” activities don’t count for as much as they once did because they’re just so darn ubiquitous these days. Quite a few kids with imperfect grades and scores are rising to the top of the heap (or at least to the pile getting acceptances). For one, they’re infinitely more interesting. They’re also often some of the hardest working students and will prize the opportunity more. </p>
<p>It’s easy to tell, in a lot of cases, where some activity or experience had a lot of adult “hands” involved, or where there is resume padding without passion or substance. Overeager adults try to read tea leaves shove students into the right “resume” boosters.</p>
<p>The kids who are self-directed tend to do better in the final analysis than the ones who went on school sponsored trips, or had a laundry list of typical (aimed at famous school) activities - unless something of their own doing that was proactive stood out.</p>
<p>No need to turn out a perfect kid - just a well-rounded kid who is passionate about something and where every grade is hard-earned even if not an A. Those stand out amongst the crowd.</p>
<p>I disagree with much in this article, especially the statement:</p>
<p>There is a big difference between a culture [99%] that encourages engagement with the world and one that encourages developing one’s own superiority [1%]. </p>
<p>If anything, it is the educational elite who care to be engaged with the world and the educational proletariat who typically don’t care. What’s with this perpetuation of the myth of the “noble poor”.</p>
<p>And, no, I’m not in the 1%.</p>
<p>I’m mostly with the people who don’t get the point…or how the conclusions here are valid. I recognize that many experiences that appeal to colleges can effectively be bought. But colleges don’t value the wealth. In the case of holistic admissions (which is all we’re talking about), the kid who has to work odd jobs in high school to help make ends meet for her/his parents and 19 siblings has an amazing story that admission officers also value. Being poor can be exotic and those experiences – which a wealthy person cannot buy – are also valued. Since colleges want diverse classes, there are wealthy paths to admission; poor house paths to admission; and even middle class paths to admission. The article ignores the fact that the holistic admission process is holistic as to the entire class – not just as to individual applicants. At some point, admission offices have had their fill of kids who have done exotic things of the variety you can buy your way into…and then being wealthy is a disadvantage. Or, put another way, wealth and the things it can purchase are only an advantage to the extent that admission offices are looking for those things. But they’re not doing that for the entire class so this just doesn’t make sense…if you think about it.</p>
<p>But I think I’m making big (and highly generous) assumptions about Gabler’s thesis. If I stick to what he actually puts in ink, I see that there’s another point that Gabler attempts to make that I simply cannot grasp – or I refuse to agree with if I am grasping it.</p>
<p>He writes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wait a second! If they are not the children of the economic 1 percent, then who are we talking about? Students who are among the “best” (however that’s defined) at their respective colleges?</p>
<p>I get this tingling sense that Gabler’s complaining about a meritocratically-determined disproportionate consumption of academic resources: “Why should the top 1% of students get more than 1% of the top graduate fellowships, or more than 1% of time using the electron microscope, or 1% of the attention from professors?” He’s definitely making a point about a misallocation of resources…because he’s expressly not defining his academic 1% as the people who occupy (if you will) the top 1% in American society.</p>
<p>I am led to believe that merit-based distinction is offensive to Gabler because limited resources are diverted away from the less meritorious to the more meritorious. In the end, is it possible that the only complaint here is one against any form of disproportionate allocation of goods and services to people?</p>
<p>At the risk of protesting too much, I remain sympathetic to the points of view in this article.</p>
<p>For example: “To the extent that the elite colleges set the pace, it is turning the educational culture into one that stresses individual perfection instead of one that stresses social improvement.”</p>
<p>Do the article’s critics not agree with this observation at all?</p>
<p>In the same paragraph, Gabler goes on to say “Because graduate schools and the best jobs often require extraordinary credentials, students must pour their energies into their own ambitions and accomplishments.”</p>
<p>Could not one could easily substitute “boarding schools” for graduate schools” and “top colleges” for “best jobs”?</p>
<p>I happen to love this statement in the concluding paragraph: “The danger isn’t just that people who are born on third base wind up thinking they hit a triple; the danger is that everyone else thinks those folks hit triples.” </p>
<p>I read this as a caveat against a culture of entitlement and the numerous “isms” mentioned above…where (to quote Nas) “the world is yours…it’s mine, it’s mine it’s mine”. I am personally uncomfortable with supporting that culture, especially in the minds and hearts of my daughters.</p>
<p>Mind you, I am not in favor of vilifying the socio-economic 1%. And admittedly, my kids were born on at least first base. I am simply in favor of taking a harder look at the values championed by the schools that education our children, society in general, and of course, ourselves as parents.</p>
<p>SevenDad, I’m not convinced. Sorry. There are many, many children of the top 1%, 5%, 10%, etc., who don’t end up in the running for a Rhodes Scholarship. Looking at lists for this year’s and last year’s Rhodes Scholarships, it does not go exclusively to the Ivy League, Stanford, and MIT. Even if a student attends the aforementioned institutions, one can’t assume they’re children of the 1% by income. </p>
<p>As the Rhodes requires athletic, as well as academic and leadership prowess, I’d suspect the Ivies and others do well because they don’t offer athletic scholarships. Thus, their athletes are probably able to spend more time on non-athletic pursuits, as their coaches can’t threaten to yank their scholarships.</p>
<p>Such articles in the NYT seem to be aimed at a small subsection of their readership: the affluent New York parents who are playing keep-up-with-the-Joneses. Mind you, the cost of living is so high in New York City, that the sort of kid-cultivation which is widespread in the suburbs might be out of reach of even fairly wealthy New Yorkers. So, if you live and work in New York, you might not realize that it’s easier to encourage a kid to excel in the cello if you don’t have to pay NYC rents and tuition.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are very few superachievers, period. I think the elite colleges set academic and character benchmarks for applicants. They do take experiences into account, but sending a kid across the world to dig a ditch won’t get him in.</p>
<p>DIFFERENT, BUT RELATED TOPIC:</p>
<p>I find Charles Murray’s upcoming book to be a more interesting take on splits in American culture. [Charles</a> Murray on the New American Divide - WSJ.com](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577170733817181646.html]Charles”>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577170733817181646.html)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks for the link to the Murray piece, Periwinkle…I’ve printed it out (how old school of me!) and will read it tonight.</p>
<p>My reasons for liking the Gabler piece have little to do with whether I agree that the 1% (socio-economic or educational) actually does suck up " a disproportionate share of academic opportunities…"…and more about his observations about the nature of education in general, that it has become less of a process and more of a means to an end. See the quotes I’ve cited above.</p>
<p>What I’m trying to avoid is raising children who think matriculation at Stone Hill College is somehow worthy of ridicule (reference to a thread from the past year). I think a culture that encourages “developing of one’s own superiority” can lead to this.</p>
<p>Thanks for the posting Klements and also much appreciation for the folks on this thread who participate so heavily - you all are GREAT. </p>
<p>It is nutty to assault “service-based travel” as an empty symbol of self-love. Such travel is quite affecting and does change the character of the child. It is worthwhile and it is humanizing.</p>
<p>Inherent to the problem of equitable access to academic resources, is the issue of School Choice. BS families are exercisers of school choice in a big way.</p>
<p>The Atlantic just published a balanced assessment of the political hot potato:
[How</a> School Choice Became an Explosive Issue - Kevin Carey - National - The Atlantic](<a href=“How School Choice Became an Explosive Issue - The Atlantic”>How School Choice Became an Explosive Issue - The Atlantic)</p>
<p>Although it has been said wealth does not pass three generations, the same cannot be said for its creation. As much as I favor equitable access to quality public education, upward mobility is a multigenerational battle of which education plays a minor role.</p>
<p>It has been my limited observation that kids from wealthy families (say more than $100mm in assets) tend NOT to be high achieving students. It has also been my observation that the brightest students are not the high achievers in the business work or those who earn their way into the top 1%. Will a good education and hard work allow one to raise up from the lower socioeconomic rungs into the upper middle class? Certainly. However, I challenge whether a HADES or HYPS education even correlates to gaining admission into that elusive 1% club. For those whose initial birth conditions were not third base, the best way to get there might well be to start a business using the half million dollars that went to BS and University.</p>
<p>Is a HADES or HYPS education is a red herring in the quest for social mobility? So, you graduate from PE and MIT, does that get you into inner circles of the truly powerful? Does it even get you into a good country club? I wonder. 1% is about power, not wealth.</p>
<p>I apologize for the rambling and going off topic a bit.</p>
<p>Thought I was semi-retired from this board but this topic is too good to pass up. The 1% selected into the elite schools (for the past few decades at least) is somewhat different from other categories of 1% such as in wealth, academic/intellectual achievements, atheletics, arts etc, members of which are almost always in the prominent positions in the society. Elite schools choose their members based on their demonstrated abilities and achievements as well as promises. This is reasonable becasue the younger you are the more likely you’d be given the “benifit of the doubt” for not being over-achieving -yet for reasons out of your control. It also means that there’s a higher likelihood that a potential “1% club member” identified by the schools could drop out of the 1% club in the vetting process. You see, there’s always new blood pumped into the 1% club and the old dropping out. That’s the only comfort we could find in this unavoidable social phenomenon, which is the so called “social mobility”. </p>
<p>The 1% club is getting more and more stablized as it moves from schools to “real world”. Just as a higher percentage of the private school students go on to the best colleges, a higher percentage of HADES students go on to ivy league colleges, a higher percentage of ivy league school graduates go to the best graduate schools and high profile jobs, the junior 1% club members have a higher chance to move on to the next level 1% club. Is the membership at a lower level club a free pass to the next level club? No. Is the next level club taking members disproportionally from the junior club? You bet. The good news is that it’s a process gradually more “achievement based” - even if you inheriting the old money, to stay in the 1% club, you need to WORK hard and smartly with the old money, otherwise they’d risk dropping out of the club. </p>
<p>To me, a dynamic 1% pool is so American that it won’t go away any time soon. The question is if the elite schools are playing a role in defining the 1%, how should they select and educate their members? To those that were born with a silver spoon, and those who “moved up”, (many of whom did not spend half a million thanks to the generous FA programs in elite schools), they should be taught early on that they have the obligations to make this world a better place with their talents and/or wealth/power.</p>
<p>When my son was 3-4 years old, he asked me two rather profound questions.</p>
<p>He said, “Dadda, how much does college cost?”</p>
<p>I responded, “Probably about half a million dollars when you get there.”</p>
<p>DS said, “Dadda, can I just have the money to buy a crane and bulldozer to start a business?”</p>
<p>He will get an education but I do question the investment value of spending $500-700k on BS, undergrad, and graduate school</p>
<p>[Education</a> & Wealth Accumulation](<a href=“NameBright - Domain Expired”>NameBright - Domain Expired)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“Opinion | Will Dropouts Save America? - The New York Times”>Opinion | Will Dropouts Save America? - The New York Times;
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/erik.hurst/research/final_resub_jpe_dec2002.pdf[/url]”>http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/erik.hurst/research/final_resub_jpe_dec2002.pdf</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am more convinced than ever that receiving a skinny envelope on March 12 rather than a Fedex on March 10 means little in the quest to be part of the 1%, those who simply want to make the world a better place.</p>