5 ms·

The author has a point about broad access to education and its effects on mobility, but overlooks something vital: to be in the ruling class, entry into these s

The author has a point about broad access to education and its effects on mobility, but overlooks something vital: to be in the ruling class, entry into these schools is very important. All but one of the members of the current Supreme Court went Ivy (and nearly all in the 20th century before), and while Congress is more diverse when it comes to undergrad (it would be very interesting to see grad school data), 5 of the top 7 are Ivies[0]. I bet you'd see the same with CEOs. You could argue that it is a reflection on the already rich getting in (although you would overlook those like Thomas, who grew up very poor), but that is also part of the problem. Many times these schools are finishing schools, which prepare their students to take their places as Masters of the Universe. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/01/30/where-the-senate-went-to-college-in-one-map/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/01/30/wh...

dangus 3y ago
I would invoke "chicken and egg" here: are the leaders of this country in the Ivy League because they're from ruling families, or are they ruling because they went to Ivy League? I suspect it's much more of the former than the latter. It's not that you have to go to an Ivy League school to run the country. Instead, the people born into the families that run the country have no reason not to go to Ivy League schools. You have unlimited tuition money, and you're guaranteed to be accepted into Harvard since you have passably average grades and your legacy family donates to the school. Would you not go to Harvard? Some prestigious companies hire mostly/only from Ivy Leagues, but ultimately those are mostly just upper-middle-class salary jobs (e.g., MBB consulting companies).
- chrischen 3y ago
  Ivey leagues do a lot to enable the propagation of generational wealth. Considering that many equally smart and talented individuals don’t get into Ivies because there simply isn’t enough space, one can view Ivies as primarily a tool to enable generational wealth by providing an environment where a hand curated selection of exceptional people (and curated diversity) is admitted to the environment to give your elite kids a well rounded education. I guess it boils down to do the Ivies really move the needle on upward mobility or is it really just doing it just enough to create the ideal student body for wealthy participants? Is it easier to guarantee entry by merit or through money?
- goodbyesf 3y ago
  > I would invoke "chicken and egg" here: are the leaders of this country in the Ivy League because they're from ruling families, or are they ruling because they went to Ivy League? Obama went to columbia and harvard. Trump went to UPenn. Neither are from ruling families. It's simply a matter of the ivy league representing some of the oldest institutions in the US and the ruling elite being entrenched members of these institutions. So those who want to serve the ruling elite need to go to these schools to get themselves vetted.
  - dangus 3y ago
    What I said wasn’t “everyone at the Ivies is in a ruling family,” what is said was “ruling families go to Ivies.” There’s a big difference in logic between those two statements. Ivy League schools have other students besides legacy admissions, but if you’re not very smart/driven (Obama) or very rich (Trump) your chances are not so great. (You should read Obama’s biography on his Wikipedia page. He transferred to Columbia as a junior, and between his undergraduate studies and law school he had a bunch of pretty unique accomplishments, the exact kind of “extracurricular activity” that would get you into Harvard. As far as Trump, he’s the son of an extremely wealthy landlord.)
- mrangle 3y ago
  Lots of elites never go to college. Lots go to non-Ivies. The top liberal arts schools have Ivy level tuition for that reason. Lots of elites go to Ivies, but the Ivy league's primary value will always be the possibility of an upward class mobility gateway. In the social sense, which is impossible to achieve otherwise generally speaking. In other words, your trailer park upbringing suddenly becomes much less relevant to a true elite job. Some liberal arts colleges can probably achieve near the same effect, but generally speaking the Ivies serve as the only true possible class ceiling penetrators. Actual elites don't need to go to college at all.
  - dangus 3y ago
    Elites not needing to go to college is beside the point. The point is that when they go, they don't go to second-rate schools.
alephnerd 3y ago
University affiliation is a lagging indicator. At least in my friend group (mostly White, Asian, and Latiné who attended the Top 50 ranked US News schools), most of us already knew each other via competitive high school extracurriculars (eg. Debate, Sports, DECA, MUN, Science Olympiads, Quiz Bowl, SAT Bootcamp, Intel Science Fair, Cyberpatriot, etc) and because we all attended the same 200-300 high schools nationally, did the same 5-7 majors, and are working in the same 3-4 industries. Flagship Public Schools are becoming elite as well now that they are becoming much more selective, as well as the fact that STEM is increasingly valued outside the STEM industry (eg. PE/IB loves hire CS and Applied Math grads from target schools due to their analytical background) Y'all boomers are arguing over a tree while ignoring the forest.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- mrangle 3y ago
  You already knew your friend group because you attended the same "2-300" high schools? Flagship Public Schools have long been limited elite. Hence the concept of the "Public Ivies". Ivy does STEM, but STEM isn't the point of going Ivy. Public Schools will continue to be fine institutions for technical workers, who were and will never considered to be elite in the class sense. Real elites tend toward history and art majors, if any college at all. Even medicine is middle class.
  - alephnerd 3y ago
    > STEM isn't the point of going Ivy It is. Cornell, Princeton, and Columbia are all Top 10 CS programs. For natural sciences, all the Ivies top the charts. For med school, same story. > Real elites tend toward history and art majors. Some children of HNWI do major in history and art. Others will gladly major in STEM. Look at people like Bill Gates or half my hs. This isn't the 80s or 90s anymore. Post-2008, top public schools have gotten as selective as Ivies were in the 2000s (7-15% acceptance rate [actually around 15-25% as BlackJack below points out]) while Ivies and Ivy Adjacent private schools (eg. UChicago, CMC, etc.) have dropped to the 1-6% acceptance rate. Also, "elite" industries like PE, IB, Management Consulting, and VC all bias hiring in favor of STEM majors, which automatically prioritizes selective public schools like Cal, Mich, UCLA, etc. > You already knew your friend group because you attended the same "2-300" high schools? Pretty much. I had 2nd degree connects at just about every top university and I myself attended a top uni. We all ended up working in the same handful of industries (Government, Media, Finance, Tech, Management Consulting, Politics) in the same handful of cities (SF, NYC, Seattle, Boston, DC) which further enhances the general alumni network as there are only a handful of top employers in each of those.
te_chris 3y ago
You're arguing a different point though. OP's point is that you'd have a much greater overall benefit to society by increasing access to more accessible places. The issue of elitism is not a refutation of this.
Nellyz 3y ago
[dead]

dangus 3y ago

I would invoke "chicken and egg" here: are the leaders of this country in the Ivy League because they're from ruling families, or are they ruling because they went to Ivy League? I suspect it's much more of the former than the latter. It's not that you have to go to an Ivy League school to run the country. Instead, the people born into the families that run the country have no reason not to go to Ivy League schools. You have unlimited tuition money, and you're guaranteed to be accepted into Harvard since you have passably average grades and your legacy family donates to the school. Would you not go to Harvard? Some prestigious companies hire mostly/only from Ivy Leagues, but ultimately those are mostly just upper-middle-class salary jobs (e.g., MBB consulting companies).

chrischen 3y ago
Ivey leagues do a lot to enable the propagation of generational wealth. Considering that many equally smart and talented individuals don’t get into Ivies because there simply isn’t enough space, one can view Ivies as primarily a tool to enable generational wealth by providing an environment where a hand curated selection of exceptional people (and curated diversity) is admitted to the environment to give your elite kids a well rounded education. I guess it boils down to do the Ivies really move the needle on upward mobility or is it really just doing it just enough to create the ideal student body for wealthy participants? Is it easier to guarantee entry by merit or through money?
goodbyesf 3y ago
> I would invoke "chicken and egg" here: are the leaders of this country in the Ivy League because they're from ruling families, or are they ruling because they went to Ivy League? Obama went to columbia and harvard. Trump went to UPenn. Neither are from ruling families. It's simply a matter of the ivy league representing some of the oldest institutions in the US and the ruling elite being entrenched members of these institutions. So those who want to serve the ruling elite need to go to these schools to get themselves vetted.
- dangus 3y ago
  What I said wasn’t “everyone at the Ivies is in a ruling family,” what is said was “ruling families go to Ivies.” There’s a big difference in logic between those two statements. Ivy League schools have other students besides legacy admissions, but if you’re not very smart/driven (Obama) or very rich (Trump) your chances are not so great. (You should read Obama’s biography on his Wikipedia page. He transferred to Columbia as a junior, and between his undergraduate studies and law school he had a bunch of pretty unique accomplishments, the exact kind of “extracurricular activity” that would get you into Harvard. As far as Trump, he’s the son of an extremely wealthy landlord.)
mrangle 3y ago
Lots of elites never go to college. Lots go to non-Ivies. The top liberal arts schools have Ivy level tuition for that reason. Lots of elites go to Ivies, but the Ivy league's primary value will always be the possibility of an upward class mobility gateway. In the social sense, which is impossible to achieve otherwise generally speaking. In other words, your trailer park upbringing suddenly becomes much less relevant to a true elite job. Some liberal arts colleges can probably achieve near the same effect, but generally speaking the Ivies serve as the only true possible class ceiling penetrators. Actual elites don't need to go to college at all.
- dangus 3y ago
  Elites not needing to go to college is beside the point. The point is that when they go, they don't go to second-rate schools.

alephnerd 3y ago

University affiliation is a lagging indicator. At least in my friend group (mostly White, Asian, and Latiné who attended the Top 50 ranked US News schools), most of us already knew each other via competitive high school extracurriculars (eg. Debate, Sports, DECA, MUN, Science Olympiads, Quiz Bowl, SAT Bootcamp, Intel Science Fair, Cyberpatriot, etc) and because we all attended the same 200-300 high schools nationally, did the same 5-7 majors, and are working in the same 3-4 industries. Flagship Public Schools are becoming elite as well now that they are becoming much more selective, as well as the fact that STEM is increasingly valued outside the STEM industry (eg. PE/IB loves hire CS and Applied Math grads from target schools due to their analytical background) Y'all boomers are arguing over a tree while ignoring the forest.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mrangle 3y ago
You already knew your friend group because you attended the same "2-300" high schools? Flagship Public Schools have long been limited elite. Hence the concept of the "Public Ivies". Ivy does STEM, but STEM isn't the point of going Ivy. Public Schools will continue to be fine institutions for technical workers, who were and will never considered to be elite in the class sense. Real elites tend toward history and art majors, if any college at all. Even medicine is middle class.
- alephnerd 3y ago
  > STEM isn't the point of going Ivy It is. Cornell, Princeton, and Columbia are all Top 10 CS programs. For natural sciences, all the Ivies top the charts. For med school, same story. > Real elites tend toward history and art majors. Some children of HNWI do major in history and art. Others will gladly major in STEM. Look at people like Bill Gates or half my hs. This isn't the 80s or 90s anymore. Post-2008, top public schools have gotten as selective as Ivies were in the 2000s (7-15% acceptance rate [actually around 15-25% as BlackJack below points out]) while Ivies and Ivy Adjacent private schools (eg. UChicago, CMC, etc.) have dropped to the 1-6% acceptance rate. Also, "elite" industries like PE, IB, Management Consulting, and VC all bias hiring in favor of STEM majors, which automatically prioritizes selective public schools like Cal, Mich, UCLA, etc. > You already knew your friend group because you attended the same "2-300" high schools? Pretty much. I had 2nd degree connects at just about every top university and I myself attended a top uni. We all ended up working in the same handful of industries (Government, Media, Finance, Tech, Management Consulting, Politics) in the same handful of cities (SF, NYC, Seattle, Boston, DC) which further enhances the general alumni network as there are only a handful of top employers in each of those.

te_chris 3y ago

You're arguing a different point though. OP's point is that you'd have a much greater overall benefit to society by increasing access to more accessible places. The issue of elitism is not a refutation of this.

Nellyz 3y ago

[dead]