The American Scholar: The Disadvantages of an Elite Education

Colleges and Universities A-Z Princeton University
1

<p>It’s not surprising that it took me so long to discover the extent of my miseducation, because the last thing an elite education will teach you is its own inadequacy. As two dozen years at Yale and Columbia have shown me, elite colleges relentlessly encourage their students to flatter themselves for being there, and for what being there can do for them. The advantages of an elite education are indeed undeniable. You learn to think, at least in certain ways, and you make the contacts needed to launch yourself into a life rich in all of society’s most cherished rewards. To consider that while some opportunities are being created, others are being cancelled and that while some abilities are being developed, others are being crippled is, within this context, not only outrageous, but inconceivable.</p>

<p>The college career office has little to say to students not interested in law, medicine, or business, and elite universities are not going to do anything to discourage the large percentage of their graduates who take their degrees to Wall Street. In fact, they’re showing them the way. The liberal arts university is becoming the corporate university, its center of gravity shifting to technical fields where scholarly expertise can be parlayed into lucrative business opportunities.</p>

<p>It’s no wonder that the few students who are passionate about ideas find themselves feeling isolated and confused. I was talking with one of them last year about his interest in the German Romantic idea of bildung, the upbuilding of the soul. But, he said—he was a senior at the time—it’s hard to build your soul when everyone around you is trying to sell theirs. </p>

<p>The</a> American Scholar - The Disadvantages of an Elite Education - By William Deresiewicz</p>

<hr>

<p>This is a well written and thought provoking article which challenges the beliefs that many of us, as current and future Princeton students, hold about the value of an elite education. At times brutally caustic, at others laugh out loud funny, William Deresiewicz's essay deserves a close read.</p>

2

<p>I really enjoy what I've read so far. Thanks for the great find!</p>

3

<p>Really great article, thanks!</p>

4

<p>Is it really that hard to meet people from humble backgrounds at Princeton?</p>

5

<p>I have met students at Princeton from a variety of backgrounds, from the very poor to the very rich. I don't have any complaints, and if this problem exists at Princeton, I don't think it's any worse than at our peer institutions. It's an empirical question whose answer bears itself out in any number of statistics, so don't just take my word for it. But to focus on it would be, I think, to miss the point of the essay. Deresiewicz is much more concerned with how the attitudes of the rich and powerful affect an elite university than with the degree to which they are represented in its student body. If you are interested in reading more about power structure and the ruling class as they relate to Ivy League universities, I would recommend Jerome Karabel's The Chosen.</p>

6

<p>Any person who applauds this trash of an article is an idiot, which pretty much sums up its author, but it does not go very far in describing the roots of motivation for other Ivy League students --many of whom DO think that they can change the world and have succeeded in their endeavors in doing so. I find it ironic of such a great american "scholar" to repeatedly represent the Ivy League as simply as Bush, Kerry, and their cronies. You'd think that his paper would be better researched than what he sees with the flick of a remote. The fact of the matter is that the kids at these Ivy League institutions are better and smarter than the rest, which could be attested to in one way through their SATs and accomplishments in high school, and you cannot simply deny this by pointing out one privileged outlier like George W bush. It is therefore then the right and the responsibility to of these institutions to give their students and future donors the opportunity to climb the ladder of mobility and succeed in the upper classes. Perhaps not until now, does the author start to realize his own pomposity, and now is trying to make up for it by pointing the finger at everyone else but himself. Deresiewicz should learn to speak and write for himself.</p>

7

<p>
[quote]
I find it ironic of such a great american "scholar" to repeatedly represent the Ivy League as simply as Bush, Kerry, and their cronies.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The article's primary weakness is that it makes generalizations which are unsubstantiated and not applicable to the majority of Ivy League students. Its greatest strength is that these generalizations are ring very true for a small but still significant group. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The fact of the matter is that the kids at these Ivy League institutions are better and smarter than the rest

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are you really prepared to argue that certain people are objectively better simply because they have higher SAT scores or a more impressive list of EC's? This is precisely the sort of academic elitism which Deresiewicz warns against.</p>

8

<p>
[quote]
The article's primary weakness is that it makes generalizations which are unsubstantiated and not applicable to the majority of Ivy League students.

[/quote]

Exactly. The entire article is a moot point because the majority of Ivy League students are not from the elite and the superrich, and are becoming less so as a result of sweeping changes made in recruiting and financial aid in the last decade. Of course old money will still hold control of these institutions for the foreseeable future, but they are not arguments that apply to the common people such as you and I. People like W were groomed for elitism since the day they were born, and it doesn't take a school to change his or her views. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Are you really prepared to argue that certain people are objectively better simply because they have higher SAT scores or a more impressive list of EC's?

[/quote]

Yes, I am. Musicians and plumbers don't change the world. Scientists and politicians do.</p>

9

<p>Could you explain what exactly it means for one person to be better than another? Is there a well-ordering of an arbitrary set of individuals? Is the life of a "better" person more valuable? Would you advocate for criminal punishment in proportion to the "worth" of the victim?</p>

10

<p>This has already been discussed ad nauseum.</p>

11

<p>Being a plumber does not make you a worthless person. The author isn't denying that people in Ivy League schools aren't smart; it'd be ridiculous to deny it. Most of them are smart in the exact same way.</p>

12

<p>try telling your landlord on upper eastside that you shouldnt have to pay $30k a month for an apartment and they'll kindly show you the door</p>

<p>going to an ivy doesnt mean anything, unless you work it to make it worth it</p>

13

<p>Hello, this is my previous post about the same article:</p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm speaking as a current college student, and although I don't agree with everything the article stated, something does resonate with me. I'm currently attending Princeton on 100% financial aid. I went through public school on free-and-reduced lunches. Yet, two years into undergrad, I realize that I'm totally out of touch with my background. The message I'm getting at Princeton is succeed, succeed, succeed. Make money, change the world, you're a leader, do something great. We're so busy doing things, sometimes it feels like we don't have time to think. It's not helping that such a disproportionate number of people graduate to go into Wall Street jobs. Two years ago, I didn't even know what I-banking stands for. And, Princeton pampers its students to such an extent that I don't need to worry about money. I expect that if I want something to happen, I'll be provided with the resources to do so. I've jumped into such a different world that it's plain scary. I can't understand why there's such a disparity between what I've received and what the greater majority of young adults in America (much less the rest of the world) will receive.</p>

<p>At the same time, perhaps this experience is what drives me to learn all I can about the American public education system. I have this crazy dream that there's some way we CAN provide quality education to every child in this country, regardless of the zip code they live in and what kind of parents they have. By some miracle, public education let me make it, now it's time to make this opportunity available to everyone. Then there are times I think, wouldn't I be happier just slowing down and living a quiet, uneventful, but peaceful life? But wait, that can't happen, because I'm a Princeton student, gosh darn it. I'm supposed to return to my ten year reunion happily settled down with an impressive CV and money or fame, preferably both, to donate to my alma mater.</p>

<p>I admit that it's not logical, but the sentiment is there.</p>

<p>In short, this cultural clash of class norms and expectations within my own life is something I definitely think about. I am incredibly thankful that I'm at Princeton to even have this issue to think about, but I know that it'll be a personal struggle for me to reconcile my old life with the life I'm working towards for the future.

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/526528-disadvantages-elite-education-post1060578701.html#post1060578701%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/526528-disadvantages-elite-education-post1060578701.html#post1060578701&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>In response to the conversation here, I have to disagree with the idea that changing the world should be a criterion for people being "objectively better". In fact, I think that a lot of people who aspire to "change the world" are setting themselves up for heartbreak. Instead, do whatever it is you choose to do to the best of your abilities, always seeking to improve, and you'll inevitably change the world, even if that wasn't your goal in the first place.</p>

14

<p>Thanks for the insightful post, debryc. I come from a similar background, so I personally appreciate seeing the perspective of a student such as yourself.</p>

<p>In response to colt45, please don't resort to name-calling just because you don't enjoy an essay. While I agree that some parts of the essay did strike me as weak (sometimes annoying), as a whole I definitely enjoyed what it stated. The author was well aware of the weaknesses weasel already stated. This essay was not meant to disparage an elite education: it was written to provide insight into some possible disadvantages of a system that has far more numerous advantages. Clearly with the author's opinion that "the advantages of an elite education are indeed undeniable" he didn't mean to attack the institutions as much as he meant to expose a possible flaw. The points clearly don't reflect all students at Princeton, as the author mentioned. But they do share a view that people may not consider when they think about the Ivy League.</p>

<p>I suppose, though, that since you consider a person that works as a plumber to be of less worth than a person that works as a scientist there are some fundamental disagreements here that won't reach any sort of consensus.</p>

15

<p>
[quote]
I have this crazy dream that there's some way we CAN provide quality education to every child in this country, regardless of the zip code they live in and what kind of parents they have.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not sure if this is necessarily a good thing, given the assumption that education means academic courses such as Trigonometry, US History, English Literature, etc. As much as liberals and other PC police would have us believe, we are not all created equal. Some of us are tall, fat, skinny, and yes, stupid. There are plenty, plenty of stupid people in this country who do not have the skills necessary to go to college nor attain a white collar position. Furthermore, intellectually, they would not benefit from writing essays on the allusions in Great Gatsby or learning trig identities. We do these people a disservice by forcing them to do this type of work for which they're unqualified and not engaged in. We also do a disservice to the American economy by spending trillions of dollars to educate lots of kids who are simply too dumb for or not interested in academic work. </p>

<p>I propose that we stop scoffing at blue collar work and start significantly increasing apprenticeships and vo-tech schooling. It will give these below average students an outlet to dispel their boredom and provide them on a more straightforward and benefiting path to a post high school job. I believe this type of system is in place in China and/or India.</p>

16

<p>...wow, man. That does not mean a good education is unnecessary nor does it mean that those types of "stupid people" cannot excel in academics just because they weren't born smart.</p>

17

<p>Dontno - You are one of the very few in this thread who still make sense.</p>

18

<p>I won't deny that there are a lot of stupid people out there, it's a fact. However, innate intelligence is only a very small portion of a person's education, there are lots of other factors like motivation, drive, curiosity that combine to form a person that has the ability to be educated. From when a child is first born, EVERYTHING is a factor: if their parents read to them, if they were in a loving, nurturing environment, if they had adult figures in their lives that supported them, etc. Not to say that it's impossible if you're from a lower socio economic background, but all of those things are significantly more likely to happen if you're on the upper end. From when kindergarteners first walk into the classroom, they're not on equal footing. So the real problem/ question, I think, is not to say that we shouldn't educate everyone to a high level, but that we should work to provide everyone with equal opportunities and to at least have a school environment for everyone that fosters all the secondary tools necessary for education. Granted, that's impossible to do realistically, but that doens't mean it's not worth working for. I'm sure we all know people that are brilliant that have terrible work ethics, and people who are about average that have strong ones. It's not only the ability to write a great paper or do hard calculus problems, it's the desire to do so, and that's something that isn't equally fostered in every zip code.</p>

19

<p>I've never seen someone use so many words to say "I agree" as you joetrumpet</p>

20

<p>@ alfredneuman and Invoyable:</p>

<p>What you're saying is inconsequential to my argument. I'll concede that socio-economic status is the determining factor holding back certain groups of people (lets be honest: blacks). I don't think this is entirely true, but i'll give it to you for argument's sake. Fine, so we spend loads of money for better teachers, better schools, better facilities, etc (even though we've already spent 40 Trillion since the 60's). So according to people like you, we wold've basically eradicated the achievement gap. OK, so oppurtunities are now equal. </p>

<p>It still doesn't matter. We'll still have a Bell curve of intelligence. So even in your ideal scenario, we still have half the population being below average intelligence. Thus, stupid people (those below average) shouldn't be wasting their time in school. They don't want to be there, they're a distraction, and their worth to society is in fixing cars and taking out the trash (honest days' living BTW).</p>