5 ms·

I think this whole debate is centered on the shallow idea that "going to an Ivy League" in and of itself is what ordains "elite-ness". To unravel this, you firs

by zumu 5y ago

I think this whole debate is centered on the shallow idea that "going to an Ivy League" in and of itself is what ordains "elite-ness". To unravel this, you first must consider the actual value proposition of Ivy Leagues relative to other schools. Firstly, undergrad in America, especially at private schools like the Ivy Leagues, is more a daycare for rich kids, than it is a place of scholarship and learning. The education is certainly good, but there are plenty of other schools with rigorous academics. At these schools the children of the rich fraternize, drink and come of age with other children of the rich. The schools themselves are well connected as well but it's in large part through these bonds with their rich and powerful peers that the graduates of these schools go on to become "the elites". If you reduce the number of kids from rich and powerful families going to these places, you are going to drastically reduce the networking potential amongst classmates and start to erode school level affiliations. In short, you can't just limit admissions to solely "academic merit" without destroying a big part of what makes prestigious schools valuable. Ultimately, if the children of the rich and powerful are excluded, they will congregate elsewhere and all the prestige and kingmakers will follow.

rejectedandsad 5y ago
Honestly, if the admissions committee decides you’re good enough to get into any of the top schools you’re already an elite of some kind (in math, rowing, “activism” etc). All of these elites need to be knocked down a few pegs. I’d go as far as to say all MIT admits are fundamentally, inherently elite (especially compared to a low IQ sap like me) and should be punished regardless. They’re rich because people like me are poor.
leoh 5y ago
> Firstly, undergrad in America, especially at private schools like the Ivy Leagues, is more a daycare for rich kids, than it is a place of scholarship and learning. The education is certainly good, but there are plenty of other schools with rigorous academics. At these schools the children of the rich fraternize, drink and come of age with other children of the rich. The schools themselves are well connected as well but it's in large part through these bonds with their rich and powerful peers that the graduates of these schools go on to become "the elites". If you reduce the number of kids from rich and powerful families going to these places, you are going to drastically reduce the networking potential amongst classmates and start to erode school level affiliations. I went to an Ivy and transferred out to a UC and I can definitively say that this is a highly romanticized take.
bluedevil2k 5y ago
> Firstly, undergrad in America, especially at private schools like the Ivy Leagues, is more a daycare for rich kids, than it is a place of scholarship and learning Way to stereotype thousands of people you don’t know at places you’ve never been.
krastanov 5y ago
I have studied and taught (as a graduate TA) at some of these institutions so maybe I am not objective, but some of your premises are flatout wrong. Especially when it comes to money: it is not the majority, but a substantial portion of undergrads in these institutions are from lower middle class or lower (economically) backgrounds. The rest are upper middle class and few are actually from rich families. The higher steps of the economic ladder are overrepresented simply because having money implies better K12 education in the US, which makes it easier to get into these schools. (Some more elitist policies like legacy admissions are slowly getting removed and "donations to get in" has not been a thing in recent history if ever) And while the extracurriculars available are quite great, it is not a "daycare" and the rigors of education are very high.
- rkk3 5y ago
  > but a substantial portion of undergrads in these institutions are from lower middle class or lower (economically) backgrounds. "69% of Yale students come from the highest-earning 20% American Families" [1]. So the bottom 80% makes up 30% of Yale. Thats quite the under representation. > donations to get in" has not been a thing in recent history if ever Did you miss the Varsity Blues scandal? Official donations are uncommon and more reserved for the Ultra High Net worth, but they are a thing, Jared Kushner was the literal poster-child for it. The most prevalent and whitewashed pay to play path is getting your child do an expensive specialty sport (Lacrosse, Fencing, Crew, Equestrian) & hiring college advisors & SAT prep. 1. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/18/it-costs-75925-to-go-to-yaleheres-how-much-students-actually-pay.html#:~:text=According%20to%20The%20New%20York,earning%2020%25%20of%20American%20households https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/18/it-costs-75925-to-go-to-yale....
  - Wowfunhappy 5y ago
    > "69% of Yale students come from the highest-earning 20% American Families" [1]. So the bottom 80% makes up 30% of Yale. Thats quite the under representation. This is still very different than the image painted by your GP, at least in my mind.
    - 5y ago
mc32 5y ago
As others have said, there are many other good schools for everyone, even for the Ivy Leaguers. But with the Ivy League you get cachet and connections. I don't begrudge them. They can have them. They will have them regardless as you said. Why want to be the thing you don't like anyway. At least it's not as bad as having to have attended the Sciences Po, or have to have attended Eton/OxBridge and the like. The bad part of the higher education system is the skyrocketing costs facilitated by loans secured by the gov where you cannot dispose the loan due to bankruptcy, as you can most others. I don't think a 4-year undergrad tuition should be more than the median of a first year graduate's full-time earnings of the degree you're pursuing.
- krastanov 5y ago
  A curiosity for me is that the Ivies are among some of the few universities where you get need-blind admission and financial aid. I have many acquaintances that did not pay a penny in tuition. But that does not fix the larger issues with the system.
  - LudwigNagasena 5y ago
    How can a college that hides its selection process guarantee need-blind admission?
    - krastanov 5y ago
      Yeah, I give you, this is a problem that should be fixed. For what is worth, if you get admitted, you have ~4 years in which you can request to view your admission paperwork, which includes some pretty interesting and weird notes from admission officials on why you were accepted. There are multiple articles on the internet of students doing that and sharing what was considered "holisticly nice" about them.
  - analog31 5y ago
    A college that my daughter was accepted at claimed to meet 100% of need, as I think a lot of private colleges do. It meant that after we filled out the FAFSA and an additional form that some private colleges use, they figured out how much we could "afford" to pay, and it was about 100% of full freight. We're a middle class family, let's say supported by 1.5 professional jobs, since one of us works part time. We didn't have a quarter million dollars jangling around in our pockets, and were greatly relieved when our daughter chose the nearby public university instead. Also, it's often expected that "need" will be partially met by working a campus job, and taking out loans. It's great if the college wants to curate a student body including some low income students, but I think there's a pretty big swath of the middle class that's neither poor enough nor rich enough for one of those colleges. I'm not devastated. The state university is damn good, and hobnobbing with the influential is only useful if you happen to be skilled at hobnobbing.
rkk3 5y ago
> If you reduce the number of kids from rich and powerful families going to these places, you are going to drastically reduce the networking potential amongst classmates Disagree. The biggest "network benefit" comes from the Alumni Network, the established recruiting channels & the prestige from the degree. These would remain if they took more poor kids.
- zumu 5y ago
  This is a good point, and I'm not sure how it would play out. Depending on the specific reforms it may be self sustaining. But prestige and recruiting channels are not in and of themselves self sustaining.

by zumu 5y ago

rejectedandsad 5y ago

Honestly, if the admissions committee decides you’re good enough to get into any of the top schools you’re already an elite of some kind (in math, rowing, “activism” etc). All of these elites need to be knocked down a few pegs. I’d go as far as to say all MIT admits are fundamentally, inherently elite (especially compared to a low IQ sap like me) and should be punished regardless. They’re rich because people like me are poor.

leoh 5y ago

> Firstly, undergrad in America, especially at private schools like the Ivy Leagues, is more a daycare for rich kids, than it is a place of scholarship and learning. The education is certainly good, but there are plenty of other schools with rigorous academics. At these schools the children of the rich fraternize, drink and come of age with other children of the rich. The schools themselves are well connected as well but it's in large part through these bonds with their rich and powerful peers that the graduates of these schools go on to become "the elites". If you reduce the number of kids from rich and powerful families going to these places, you are going to drastically reduce the networking potential amongst classmates and start to erode school level affiliations. I went to an Ivy and transferred out to a UC and I can definitively say that this is a highly romanticized take.

bluedevil2k 5y ago

> Firstly, undergrad in America, especially at private schools like the Ivy Leagues, is more a daycare for rich kids, than it is a place of scholarship and learning Way to stereotype thousands of people you don’t know at places you’ve never been.

krastanov 5y ago

I have studied and taught (as a graduate TA) at some of these institutions so maybe I am not objective, but some of your premises are flatout wrong. Especially when it comes to money: it is not the majority, but a substantial portion of undergrads in these institutions are from lower middle class or lower (economically) backgrounds. The rest are upper middle class and few are actually from rich families. The higher steps of the economic ladder are overrepresented simply because having money implies better K12 education in the US, which makes it easier to get into these schools. (Some more elitist policies like legacy admissions are slowly getting removed and "donations to get in" has not been a thing in recent history if ever) And while the extracurriculars available are quite great, it is not a "daycare" and the rigors of education are very high.

rkk3 5y ago
> but a substantial portion of undergrads in these institutions are from lower middle class or lower (economically) backgrounds. "69% of Yale students come from the highest-earning 20% American Families" [1]. So the bottom 80% makes up 30% of Yale. Thats quite the under representation. > donations to get in" has not been a thing in recent history if ever Did you miss the Varsity Blues scandal? Official donations are uncommon and more reserved for the Ultra High Net worth, but they are a thing, Jared Kushner was the literal poster-child for it. The most prevalent and whitewashed pay to play path is getting your child do an expensive specialty sport (Lacrosse, Fencing, Crew, Equestrian) & hiring college advisors & SAT prep. 1. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/18/it-costs-75925-to-go-to-yaleheres-how-much-students-actually-pay.html#:~:text=According%20to%20The%20New%20York,earning%2020%25%20of%20American%20households https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/18/it-costs-75925-to-go-to-yale....
- Wowfunhappy 5y ago
  > "69% of Yale students come from the highest-earning 20% American Families" [1]. So the bottom 80% makes up 30% of Yale. Thats quite the under representation. This is still very different than the image painted by your GP, at least in my mind.
  - 5y ago

mc32 5y ago

As others have said, there are many other good schools for everyone, even for the Ivy Leaguers. But with the Ivy League you get cachet and connections. I don't begrudge them. They can have them. They will have them regardless as you said. Why want to be the thing you don't like anyway. At least it's not as bad as having to have attended the Sciences Po, or have to have attended Eton/OxBridge and the like. The bad part of the higher education system is the skyrocketing costs facilitated by loans secured by the gov where you cannot dispose the loan due to bankruptcy, as you can most others. I don't think a 4-year undergrad tuition should be more than the median of a first year graduate's full-time earnings of the degree you're pursuing.

krastanov 5y ago
A curiosity for me is that the Ivies are among some of the few universities where you get need-blind admission and financial aid. I have many acquaintances that did not pay a penny in tuition. But that does not fix the larger issues with the system.
- LudwigNagasena 5y ago
  How can a college that hides its selection process guarantee need-blind admission?
  - krastanov 5y ago
    Yeah, I give you, this is a problem that should be fixed. For what is worth, if you get admitted, you have ~4 years in which you can request to view your admission paperwork, which includes some pretty interesting and weird notes from admission officials on why you were accepted. There are multiple articles on the internet of students doing that and sharing what was considered "holisticly nice" about them.
- analog31 5y ago
  A college that my daughter was accepted at claimed to meet 100% of need, as I think a lot of private colleges do. It meant that after we filled out the FAFSA and an additional form that some private colleges use, they figured out how much we could "afford" to pay, and it was about 100% of full freight. We're a middle class family, let's say supported by 1.5 professional jobs, since one of us works part time. We didn't have a quarter million dollars jangling around in our pockets, and were greatly relieved when our daughter chose the nearby public university instead. Also, it's often expected that "need" will be partially met by working a campus job, and taking out loans. It's great if the college wants to curate a student body including some low income students, but I think there's a pretty big swath of the middle class that's neither poor enough nor rich enough for one of those colleges. I'm not devastated. The state university is damn good, and hobnobbing with the influential is only useful if you happen to be skilled at hobnobbing.

rkk3 5y ago

> If you reduce the number of kids from rich and powerful families going to these places, you are going to drastically reduce the networking potential amongst classmates Disagree. The biggest "network benefit" comes from the Alumni Network, the established recruiting channels & the prestige from the degree. These would remain if they took more poor kids.

zumu 5y ago
This is a good point, and I'm not sure how it would play out. Depending on the specific reforms it may be self sustaining. But prestige and recruiting channels are not in and of themselves self sustaining.