Does Harvard University select admisions contribute to elitism and classism?

[gnosis92]

Havard University admissions are select, and those who are admitted are given opportunities not available to others, opportunities to join the ruling elite and become rich.

If Harvard University admisions was non-elitist, would they accept applicants on a random basis?

If Harvard University admissions was non-classist would anyone want to apply there as opposed to a local community college?

Is there any contradiction for a Harvard student or faculty to profess anti-elitist radical-feminist-Marxist-socialist-anti-War-anti-capitalist theology, while participating in an institution that educates the children of the ruling class, and whose endowment is in billions of capitalist dollars, and who themselves enjoy capitalist elitist classist privileges?

from here
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=208141

Classism
is any form of prejudice or oppression against people as a result of their actual or perceived social class (especially in the form of lower socioeconomic status).

Elitism
is the belief or attitude that those individuals who are considered members of the elite — a select group of people with outstanding personal abilities, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight; whose views and/or actions are mostly likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern.

[Jimmy Higgins]

If Harvard University admisions was non-elitist, would they accept applicants on a random basis?They are elitist only in the sense of education and character (except when they accept idiots like Bush... where he got his MBA).

If Harvard University admissions was non-classist would anyone want to apply there as opposed to a local community college?Does Harvard not accept people who are poor as a rule? Otherwise, they aren't classist

[gnosis92]

They are elitist only in the sense of education and character (except when they accept idiots like Bush... where he got his MBA).

Does Harvard not accept people who are poor as a rule? Otherwise, they aren't classist

The typical applicant to Harvard has shown high test scores and GPA, and extracurriculars including music, drama, independent scientific research, entrepneurship etc.

Developing these talents require money.

[Jimmy Higgins]

The typical applicant to Harvard has shown high test scores and GPA, and extracurriculars including music, drama, independent scientific research, entrepneurship etc.

Developing these talents require money.Your claim needs to be better demonstrated that just saying it "require[s] money".

It would be expected that many people who go to Harvard are from affluent areas and families, but this does not preclude, immediately, that Harvard has a policy of not accepting people of similar talent coming from poorer areas and families. You need to demonstrate that do, if it is true.

[aegis]

I doubt that Harvard makes top notch people. Their selection criteria are such that only people who would be brilliant no matter where they went (within reason) are accepted.

[Dick Springer]

I went to Harvard on scholarships. My parents were lower middle class and did not go to college. I was not motivated to strike it rich, and I definitely did not do so. I was in the class of 1951. My class included a considerable number of World War II veterans on the GI Bill and many other students, often Jewish, with a class background like mine. The bottom of our class academically was occupied by the likes of George Bush, who got in as legacies and did minimal work when they got there. The ethos was definitely against becoming an investment banker or the like, the Business School had lower academic standards than other graduate schools, and medicine, law, and academic careers were what a majority wanted.

I was at Harvard among an extraordinarily stimulating group of people and, though I probably would have made out as well economically (in my case not very well) if I had gone elsewhere, I don't think I would have received the most important benefits of education at a school where students were challenged less.

[Loren Pechtel]

Next time you need open-heart surgery why don't you go to the janitor instead of the cardiac surgeon?



There's a very good reason for schools to accept only applicants above some threshold. The result is overall better education because students will learn more if they are in a class with others of similar ability.

When you mix ability levels either you teach too slow for the bright ones, thus holding them back, or else you teach too fast for the slow ones, leaving them lost and gaining almost nothing from the class.

Thus the better you can sort students out the more education you will obtain for a given input of effort.

This is why the good students flee when too many immigrants or other poor students (while immigrants aren't inherently poor students their general lack of English makes them poor students for a while and by the time they learn the English they are behind, thus remaining poor students.) show up. The level of learning in the class will be adjusted downward for the poor students.

[aegis]

This is why the good students flee when too many immigrants or other poor students (while immigrants aren't inherently poor students their general lack of English makes them poor students for a while and by the time they learn the English they are behind, thus remaining poor students.) show up. The level of learning in the class will be adjusted downward for the poor students.

Immigrants (from Eastern Europe and Israel) were generally at the top of the class at my highschool.

[Ash B]

Loren, suppose your rationale was the standard thought process of university administrators. How could you possibly say that this is a "very good reason" for favoring the rich? Endowing the wealthy with greater access to resources while denying the poor is completely backwards and counterproductive to any seeker of single-tiered pluralism.

That's not to say that I acknowledge your rationale as being the standard, though. Elite private universities like Harvard are businesses foremost, and schools on a lesser level of importance. They value money over quality of education, hence their larger acceptance rates for alumni and big donors. Politicians have turned such institutions into mechanisms for their own purposes: maintaining their class dominance, accentuating their fortunes, establishing well-knit social networks.

[premjan]

The government could easily create public schools of equal quality as Harvard, (modulo stuff that requires expensive pre-university preparation like playing golf or whatever) if they simply created such elite public institutions. Make the tuition not an issue, and admission only for the best students. They could easily put Harvard in the shade. University professors generally go for good students and research, and adequate research grants, not for inflated personal salaries so they will be happy to go where the best students are.

[Metaphor]

I think the selection system to American universities is - frankly - ludicrous. In Australia, the most meritorious get into university, and it does not depend on your financial situation, your sporting ability or any other non-relevant variable to tertiary education. The Howard government tried to destroy that with their "pay to get into your degree" system, but it has so far been limited, and is still dependent on your high school results.

Australian high-school students are evaluated on their final two years of courses and given a rank out of 100 (to two decimal places, the UAI) that compares them to everyone else in the State (and in the country). You rank the courses that you are interested in getting, at whatever university, and the places are filled according to your individual UAI. So, popular courses with high demand and limited places might have a UAI cut off of 99.5, less prestigious courses at less prestigious universities could havea UAI of 70. You get into the course if your UAI is above the cutoff.

[Bonniedundee]

I think the selection system to American universities is - frankly - ludicrous. In Australia, the most meritorious get into university, and it does not depend on your financial situation, your sporting ability or any other non-relevant variable to tertiary education. But the standard of your secondary school education depends to some extent on your bank balance, and of course on your willingness to submit to the "education" the state decides is best for you instead of a well rounded education.

[Metaphor]

But the standard of your secondary school education depends to some extent on your bank balance, and of course on your willingness to submit to the "education" the state decides is best for you instead of a well rounded education.

Yes, but the idea that you can get a free education in the US because you can play football is mind-bogglingly ludicrous to me.

The best predictor of future academic performance is past academic performance, not your fucking throwing ability.

[Bonniedundee]

Yes, but the idea that you can get a free education in the US because you can play football is mind-bogglingly ludicrous to me.

The best predictor of future academic performance is past academic performance, not your fucking throwing ability.Then again real academic thought takes independent thought and initiative, this is hardly the sort of thing fostered by publik skool.

It would be better to supply places to those who have a well rounded grasp of things.

[Bonniedundee]

Next time you need open-heart surgery why don't you go to the janitor instead of the cardiac surgeon?



There's a very good reason for schools to accept only applicants above some threshold. The result is overall better education because students will learn more if they are in a class with others of similar ability.

When you mix ability levels either you teach too slow for the bright ones, thus holding them back, or else you teach too fast for the slow ones, leaving them lost and gaining almost nothing from the class.

Thus the better you can sort students out the more education you will obtain for a given input of effort.

This is why the good students flee when too many immigrants or other poor students (while immigrants aren't inherently poor students their general lack of English makes them poor students for a while and by the time they learn the English they are behind, thus remaining poor students.) show up. The level of learning in the class will be adjusted downward for the poor students.
A publik skool gradation is hardly the best standard for judging who is a poor student or a good student.

[toth8]

If they want to be elitist, then it's their right. Freedom of association and all.

Or should they allow people who barely passed their high school diplomas in? :D :rolleyes:

[toth8]

Havard University admissions are select, and those who are admitted are given opportunities not available to others, opportunities to join the ruling elite and become rich.

If Harvard University admisions was non-elitist, would they accept applicants on a random basis?

If Harvard University admissions was non-classist would anyone want to apply there as opposed to a local community college?

Is there any contradiction for a Harvard student or faculty to profess anti-elitist radical-feminist-Marxist-socialist-anti-War-anti-capitalist theology, while participating in an institution that educates the children of the ruling class, and whose endowment is in billions of capitalist dollars, and who themselves enjoy capitalist elitist classist privileges?

from here
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=208141

Classism
is any form of prejudice or oppression against people as a result of their actual or perceived social class (especially in the form of lower socioeconomic status).

Elitism
is the belief or attitude that those individuals who are considered members of the elite — a select group of people with outstanding personal abilities, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight; whose views and/or actions are mostly likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern.

I'd imagine the Ivy League select on the basis of high academic ability, like Oxbridge in the UK. And why the hell not? Given the history and tradition of the Ivy League, why should some schmoe with poor high school grades be permitted entry? :D

[untermensche]

But the standard of your secondary school education depends to some extent on your bank balance, and of course on your willingness to submit to the "education" the state decides is best for you instead of a well rounded education.
The fact that there are incredibly expensive and exclusive "feeder" schools to schools like Harvard demonstrates the elitism of the system.

Some are flown through life on a magic carpet. Expensive prep school, Expensive college, job in the higher levels of the heirarchy without working your way up.

And most must make it through the muck and mud this heirarchical system forces upon them to achieve anything.

Equal opportunity.

The biggest lie of capitalism.

[chapka]

The government could easily create public schools of equal quality as Harvard, (modulo stuff that requires expensive pre-university preparation like playing golf or whatever) if they simply created such elite public institutions.

Yes; and they do. There are lots of excellent public schools; Berkeley, the University of Michigan, and the University of Virginia spring to mind. But what does that have to do with anything? Berkeley isn't any easier to get into than any other elite school, and they still select for pretty much the same criteria (except that they have a preference for Californians, of course).

[premjan]

Yes; and they do. There are lots of excellent public schools; Berkeley, the University of Michigan, and the University of Virginia spring to mind. But what does that have to do with anything? Berkeley isn't any easier to get into than any other elite school, and they still select for pretty much the same criteria (except that they have a preference for Californians, of course).The main issue would be cost and profit orientation. A public school is potentially lower in cost (of course Harvard is maybe able to offer the same levels of financial aid to less wealthy applicants - not sure).

[untermensche]

The main issue would be cost and profit orientation. A public school is potentially lower in cost (of course Harvard is maybe able to offer the same levels of financial aid to less wealthy applicants - not sure).
Harvard has money if it wants somebody and the person can't afford it.

But while a Harvard does want some people based on talent, it also wants people well connected to money and power, who may only have average abilities, but incredible senses of entitlement, a royal sense. In fact the duller and the more malleable the better.

[premjan]

I think (liberal or general) educational institutions should categorically not be in the elitism or profit business. In fact education should be an equalizer between humans. Training institutes of course can be in the profit business as the purpose is to train people to work for profit.

[chapka]

The fact that there are incredibly expensive and exclusive "feeder" schools to schools like Harvard demonstrates the elitism of the system.

These students make up a small minority of most Ivy League classes. Yes, they demonstrate the elitism of the system to some extent, but they aren't the whole story.

The Ivies (or at least the ones with smart admissions departments) try desperately to get smart kids from public high schools, especially those in lower-income areas, to apply. The top schools don't make money on tuition; they make money from alumni, and so they want kids who can succeed after college. A lot of good students don't bother to apply to Ivies because they think they have no shot or can't afford it. But realistically, given the same intelligence and achievements, it's a lot easier for a kid from a rural public school somewhere to get into an Ivy than it is for a kid from an elite prep school.

Ivies have quotas of how many kids they'll take from each school, to avoid feeding the "feeder" mentality. But they're always interested in the one oustanding kid from Left Nut Municipal High School. And they're not idiots; they know that the kid from Left Nut who did three AP courses on independent study because his high school didn't offer any and got a 1500 on his SATs with no tutoring is going to be a better student than the kid who graduated in the bottom half of the class at Choate, did just what was expected of him, and got a 1550 SAT after six years of tutoring.

[untermensche]

These students make up a small minority of most Ivy League classes. Yes, they demonstrate the elitism of the system to some extent, but they aren't the whole story.
They make up a very small segment at Harvard because they represent a tiny minority of the population.

A tiny minority that ends up with incredible power over others, not by talent, or election, but by station at birth.

This is called monarchy.

[chapka]

The main issue would be cost and profit orientation. A public school is potentially lower in cost (of course Harvard is maybe able to offer the same levels of financial aid to less wealthy applicants - not sure).

A few points:

1. The top private universities are generally non-profits, just the same as public institutions. In fact, since they're mostly working with large endowments rather than having to beg for tax money every year, they're probably less concerned about the bottom line than many state schools are.

2. The bottom line has no real effect on tuition. Less than 15% of Yale's budget comes from tuition and student-paid fees; alumni contributions are much more important overall. In the long run, Yale would rather have 50 years of donations from a rich, successful alum than 4 years of tuition from someone who's not going to be as successful when they get out.

3. Yes, public universities are often cheaper, but they're still not free. $15,000 a year is not realistically more affordable than $25,000 a year for most kids from poor backgrounds.

4. I don't know about Harvard, but at Yale, admissions are need-blind, and if you are admitted, they will find a way for you to pay for it. Yes, you'll probably need to take out loans and work a work-study job to cover part of the bill, which rich applicants might not have to do, but you can make it happen.

[Nitrousoxide]

Sure...

Let's state this more clearly so that it's more obvious how preposterous it is.

A tiny number of people in Ivy League schools are from high priced private schools seen to be "feeder schools" by some. Therefore this is proof that Ivy League is an elitist system which only serves the need of a monarchy.

Does this strike anyone else as a silly argument?

I mean, sure there are ways one might seemingly come close to making the case that Ivy League schools perpetuate a sort of monarchy like state in the nation, but pointing to the tiny number of people from these feeder schools, acknowledging that they are a immensely small percentage of the total population and then deducing from that what untermensche seems to want to here is not the way to go about doing it.

[premjan]

What is the "tiny" percentage of people who are admitted for reasons of social class rather than pure merit at a place like Harvard? The existence of students who are able to enter for reasons of nonmerit (where merit is viewed in an egalitarian sense to not dominantly consist of proficiency at prohibitively expensive occupations like horseriding) does skew the whole institution in some ways, though it probably does help pay the bills, get named buildings etc.

[untermensche]

A tiny number of people in Ivy League schools are from high priced private schools seen to be "feeder schools" by some. Therefore this is proof that Ivy League is an elitist system which only serves the need of a monarchy.
Monarchy is where you are at some point given power over many people, not based on talent, or their desires, but because of status at birth, who your parents, or what your family, are in other words.

If this is occuring, then you are polluted with a monarchy in your midst.

And like all monarchies, there are many people working to maintain it.

Some with their lives in Iraq as we speak.

Sent by their King.

[Loren Pechtel]

Immigrants (from Eastern Europe and Israel) were generally at the top of the class at my highschool.

Not all immigrants are bad. It's that so many of them are held back by limited English. An immigrant who already speaks English will likely do better than the average.

[chapka]

Monarchy is where you are at some point given power over many people, not based on talent, or their desires, but because of status at birth, who your parents, or what your family, are in other words.

Frankly, while I'm in favor of limiting this sort of thing, I think you may be overstating its importance in the grand scheme of things, and especially the role of the Ivy League in its perpetuation. Yes, there are some Ivy League students who are there because they come from rich, important families. But for the most part, the Ivies provide a merit-based way for talented people from the middle class to work their way into positions of power and influence, which in my book is not such a bad thing. For an example, let's look at the current serious presidential candidates:


Barack Obama: from a middle-class family; attended prep school, then Columbia and Harvard
Hilary Clinton: from a middle-class family; attended public school, then Wellesley and Yale
John Edwards: son of a factory worker, attended Clemson and NC State
Rudy Giuliani: son of working-class parents, attended Catholic high schools, Manhattan College, and NYU
Fred Thompson: born to working- or middle-class parents in rural Alabama; attended public school, public universities, and Vanderbilt
John McCain: from a career military family; attended prep school and the U.S. Naval Academy
Mike Bloomberg: born into a middle-class family; attended Johns Hopkins and Harvard; made his own fortune before entering politics
Mitt Romney: born into an entrenched, wealthy political family; attended prep school, Stanford, BYU and Harvard

So, out of this list of eight people I consider serious candidates, we have only one person, Romney, whose parents had any sort of claim to be part of an entrenched social elite, and he didn't attend any Ivy League school as an undergrad (he did attend Harvard Business School, but frankly everyone knows that's a joke school for rich kids). Most of the rest of the field were not from the sort of background where they had social capital to throw around, so presumably they got into the Ivy League, and other equivalent private (or public in one case) schools on merit and hard work.

The Bushes, father and son, are throwbacks. Before them, you have a lot of Presidents like Bill Clinton, who grew up dirt poor and worked his way through Georgetown, Oxford, and Yale. In fact, except for the Bushes, the last six presidents - Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, and Johnson - were all public-school products; not a preppie among them. Truman and Eisenhower also attended public school; them and JFK gets you back to FDR, who was old money back in the days when what you're talking about was a reality and social class really did matter in Ivy League admissions. Before becoming president, LBJ worked as an elevator operator; Truman worked on the railroad and slept in hobo camps. Several came from broken homes and/or had experience with domestic abuse.

So where is this entrenched political elite you're talking about? The ones who prep at Andover and then waltz into Yale? Is Bush the only one? Dick Cheney went to Yale (although he flunked out), but he was the son of a minor civil servant and went to public school. Let's take a look at the Bush cabinet appointments so far:

Colin Powell - public school
Condi Rice - segregated public schools and Catholic school
Don Rumsfeld - public school; Ivy League scholarship student
Robert Gates - public school; William & Mary scholarship student

...and so on. In fact, out of the 42 Bush administration cabinet appointments to date, only a handful (including 2 of his 3 Treasury appointments) had anything like the background you're talking about. There are a lot more Tommy Thompsons in the mix than Christine Whitmans.

Yes, rich people's kids have it easier than poor people's kids. Yes, it sucks that that's the case. But Bush is an aberration in a system that's made it easier and easier for more and more people from whatever background to break through to power. And the Ivy League, and other top-tier private and public schools, are a big part of that meritocratic system.

[psikeyhackr]

8 minutes into this video there are Harvard graduates that can't explain what causes the seasons.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8863032177906819557

The elitism is based on cultural propaganda and what everybody else thinks. When you actually get into the setting you find reality ain't what people think it is. Of course the people that benefit from the delusions want to maintain them.

psik

[untermensche]

...Frankly, while I'm in favor of limiting this sort of thing, I think you may be overstating its importance in the grand scheme of things, and especially the role of the Ivy League in its perpetuation...
When I talk about the power of the nation I am not only talking about politicians. I am also talking about the people that decide which direction the economy will take, the bankers and financiers and large investors. And the people who make large scale decisions in corporations, the upper management and the Board, decisions that many times effect the lives of thousands to hundreds of thousands, or millions, like; how much oil should we refine today?

It is true that a person can come from a lowly place, and lowly places exist, to rise to the top of one of these heirarchies. But they will do it by proving loyalty to the heirarchy. And they will have to be extremely talented in some area, as well as expert in human politics, to rise to the top.

While the ordinary that come from the right family will move quickly to the top of the heirarchy.

[chapka]

When I talk about the power of the nation I am not only talking about politicians. I am also talking about the people that decide which direction the economy will take, the bankers and financiers and large investors. And the people who make large scale decisions in corporations, the upper management and the Board, decisions that many times effect the lives of thousands to hundreds of thousands, or millions, like; how much oil should we refine today?

I've already demonstrated that this isn't true in the political arena; would you like to provide evidence that it is true in some other arena?

Yes, many rich people from rich families make up board members and large investors of companies--things that require money. Under any system that lets people get rich, rich people will get rich. But that's not monarchy; that's capitalism. And frankly most of the really rich aren't from "good families" anyway; they're people like Mike Bloomberg and Bill Gates who grew up middle class and made their own money.

It is true that a person can come from a lowly place, and lowly places exist, to rise to the top of one of these heirarchies. But they will do it by proving loyalty to the heirarchy. And they will have to be extremely talented in some area, as well as expert in human politics, to rise to the top.

In other words, a meritocracy. So what is the problem?

While the ordinary that come from the right family will move quickly to the top of the heirarchy.

Again; evidence? Which families would you be thinking of? And how exactly do they move so quickly to the top, especially now that "the top" is composed primarily of people who got there on merit?

Who do you think has more power: Paris Hilton or Michael Bloomberg?

I'll give my personal experience. When I was at Yale, there were a lot of legacies, people who got admission preference because their parents were alumni. But for the most part, I didn't know who they were, because it's not something people bragged about. Why would they? It wasn't going to impress anyone, and it wasn't going to get them anywhere with those of us who got in on pure merit. And a lot of those "legacies" weren't old money; they were the kids of hardworking scholarship students who may have been the first in their families to go to college themselves.

[untermensche]

I've already demonstrated that this isn't true in the political arena; would you like to provide evidence that it is true in some other arena?
You have not demonstrated much about the political arena by showing the background of a few people running for the presidential nomination.

Who is supporting these people? Who are they loyal to? Who will they serve when elected?

Answer that and you have said something about the state of politics.

[Nitrousoxide]

You have not demonstrated much about the political arena by showing the background of a few people running for the presidential nomination.

Who is supporting these people? Who are they loyal to? Who will they serve when elected?

Answer that and you have said something about the state of politics.

How exactly would you ever expect him to show you that it is a meritocracy? Does he need to show you that each and every person in power is there because of merit? That's a rather large request isn't it?

Wouldn't it be far more reasonable that you show that there is reason to think it ISN'T a meritocracy by virtue of a prevelent problem in politics and in the economy?

I mean, you seem to want him to provide oodles of information, yet you exempt yourself from the same requirement.

[untermensche]

How exactly would you ever expect him to show you that it is a meritocracy? Does he need to show you that each and every person in power is there because of merit? That's a rather large request isn't it?

Wouldn't it be far more reasonable that you show that there is reason to think it ISN'T a meritocracy by virtue of a prevelent problem in politics and in the economy?

I mean, you seem to want him to provide oodles of information, yet you exempt yourself from the same requirement.
We would have to agree on a definition of what is meritorious first.

Allegence and devotion to a heirarchy is considered meritous by some and living like an obedient dog by others.

[aegis]

The Ivies (or at least the ones with smart admissions departments) try desperately to get smart kids from public high schools, especially those in lower-income areas, to apply. The top schools don't make money on tuition; they make money from alumni, and so they want kids who can succeed after college. A lot of good students don't bother to apply to Ivies because they think they have no shot or can't afford it. But realistically, given the same intelligence and achievements, it's a lot easier for a kid from a rural public school somewhere to get into an Ivy than it is for a kid from an elite prep school.


Then it makes perfect sense for them to take very wealthy elites who will make tons of money because of their family connections, inherited family empire, and other such things.

I wonder what percentage of the super high earners are just smart kids who didn't have the family wealth/status/connections.

If a smart kid does great academically and becomes a professor or an engineer or some other high-end intelligence dependent job, s/he will probably make 100-200k and won't be super-contributor to Harvard.

[Bonniedundee]

If they want to be elitist, then it's their right. Freedom of association and all.No it's not, many of these unis are, as Rothbard pointed out, get most of their funding from the state, hence like publically listed companies open to homestanding.

Seriously man we're anarchists, I defend ancaps to other anarchists all the time, but displays of elitism really don't help much.

[Thomas Ash]

I have to say, I find it bizarre that Americans give any money to their alma mater (aren't there better causes?): do Ivy Leagues really get more in donations from the average alumnus than the huge fees they've already had to pay?

[Metaphor]

If I were a rich alumnus, I'd make a donation every year with the following conditions:

1) it would go to the academically gifted, but financially needy, by ways of a scholarship

2) the amount I give would be inversely proportional to the amount set aside for sports scholarships

[Xrikcus]

I have to say, I find it bizarre that Americans give any money to their alma mater (aren't there better causes?): do Ivy Leagues really get more in donations from the average alumnus than the huge fees they've already had to pay?

I find it a shame people in the UK don't. Oxford and Cambridge do have fairly large endowments, and I think Edinburgh too (though small compared with the richer US establishments), but pretty much everywhere else is running year on year on a fine balance of government grants. We recently had some big donations here at Imperial, and all of a sudden some new buildings spring up, desperately needed buildings, at that. I would happily give money, were I earning a lot, but the chance of being able to give a meaningful amount is remote.

[Thomas Ash]

I find it a shame people in the UK don't. Oxford and Cambridge do have fairly large endowments, and I think Edinburgh too (though small compared with the richer US establishments), but pretty much everywhere else is running year on year on a fine balance of government grants. We recently had some big donations here at Imperial, and all of a sudden some new buildings spring up, desperately needed buildings, at that. I would happily give money, were I earning a lot, but the chance of being able to give a meaningful amount is remote.

Well, the Ivies are in a vastly better situation (though even when it comes to UK universities there are still many vastly better causes...)

(BTW, I have heard that Cambridge at least is struggling financially too...)

[Trout]

Why are classism and elitism necessarily bad? I think the ideas can results in a very bad situation if self perpetuating and we end up with certain families/groups continuously running things (such as we are now moving toward) but overall, what's the issue with the concepts?

Class and elites have always been present in America but I personally think it's never been a major factor in politics due to other things. One example is the race issue. While class based political movements occured in other western nations, in the US, no matter how crap your life was, people were "always better than the blacks" for example, so there was no immediate need for the lower classes tio think of themselves as such.

[toth8]

No it's not, many of these unis are, as Rothbard pointed out, get most of their funding from the state, hence like publically listed companies open to homestanding.

Seriously man we're anarchists, I defend ancaps to other anarchists all the time, but displays of elitism really don't help much.

But even in an anarchist society they would still be elitist, and it's their right to be.

[ghetto astronaut]

Schools like Harvard are always going to be somewhat classist no matter what. You can never account for all the differences that being wealthy can afford a person. Even for basic grades - those with a lot of money can afford expensive tutoring.

I got into every school I applied for despite being completely broke with no money for university, but that's because it was based 100% on highschool grades.

[ghetto astronaut]

Also, doesn't Harvard have a policy where any kids who are accepted and have a household income of <$50k/year get free tuition? I think I read that.

[chapka]

If I were a rich alumnus, I'd make a donation every year with the following conditions:

1) it would go to the academically gifted, but financially needy, by ways of a scholarship

2) the amount I give would be inversely proportional to the amount set aside for sports scholarships

For the record, the Ivy League schools do not give sports scholarships. In fact, they don't give academically based scholarships, either; all financial aid is based on financial need.

And as a side note, I'm not convinced most people know what the Ivy League really is. It's called a "league" because it's a group of schools that play each other in collegiate sports. It's not any sort of reflection on the merit of the schools; although several of the top schools in the country are in the Ivy League, I don't think anyone would argue that they're the best eight schools in the United States. The only really unique feature among them is that they make their athletes pay tuition.

[chapka]

We would have to agree on a definition of what is meritorious first.

Allegence and devotion to a heirarchy is considered meritous by some and living like an obedient dog by others.

This is just bizarre. For the most part, the social "hierarchy" is pretty much irrelevant to the people who actually run things. Except for society page reporters, people in this country don't really care that much about who your parents were or where your money came from. People with money have power. I don't accept for a minute that "old money" still means anything to a significant number of people.

Seriously; I've attended two Ivy League schools and I don't think I ever knew how old anyone's family was or whether anyone was in "society." I've lived in New York and Philadelphia, notoriously two of the most "society"-centric cities in the country, and it's still pretty irrelevant to everyday life. And the kids who are graduating from the Ivies today are going to have to come to me for a job, and I can tell you right now that their achievements are going to matter and their families aren't. There may be a few pockets of "society" still surviving in the South or in a few East Coast backwaters, but they're irrelevant to the people actually running things.

Sure, rich kids are going to have an easier time racking up those achievements, but that's very different from the idea that America still has a "hierarchy" of the "right" families that have it easier. For the most part, that's simply not true any more. There are rich people, celebrities, and the rest of us.

[CelticChic]

I think the selection system to American universities is - frankly - ludicrous. In Australia, the most meritorious get into university, and it does not depend on your financial situation, your sporting ability or any other non-relevant variable to tertiary education. The Howard government tried to destroy that with their "pay to get into your degree" system, but it has so far been limited, and is still dependent on your high school results.


For us regular folk selection has nothing to do with being able to afford it. I was accepted to several schools out of highschool. I couldn't afford anything without financial aid and they don't ask about it until after you've been accepted. Then if you need it they work with you to make sure you get it.

I wouldn't doubt that people with name recognition like Bush or Kennedy who are known to have rich families get into schools easier than I did. Schools like to ask for money from their alumni and if you have a few rich alumni it's probably worth letting them in for the money they may give afterwards. I certainly haven't given my school anything since I graduated, I've been too busy paying off my loans.

Sports are a whole 'nother ball of wax. It irritates me that it's harder to get academic scholarships than sports ones. However, a sports scholarship is practically proportional to the money-making ability of that college sport. So football and basketball have lots of money to offer, equestrian sports (my interest) required me to pay them because there wasn't any money in the college level sport. Athletes are technically supposed to be held to academic standards as well, but I suspect (no proof here) that the bigger the athletic notoriety of the school the more it's permitted to slip.

In any case spots in universities (public or private) are limited. They can't handle everyone so they have to have some standard levels. I doubt Juilliard would me if I failed their audition and I don't see that as unfair, I doubt Harvard would let me into their medical school either.

[untermensche]

This is just bizarre. For the most part, the social "hierarchy" is pretty much irrelevant to the people who actually run things. Except for society page reporters, people in this country don't really care that much about who your parents were or where your money came from. People with money have power. I don't accept for a minute that "old money" still means anything to a significant number of people.
I'm not talking about some meaningless social hierarchy. I'm talking about a power hierarchy. A very dangerous and destructive power hierarchy presently.

[Bonniedundee]

But even in an anarchist society they would still be elitist, and it's their right to be.How do you know?

In an anarchist society the teachers and students would take them over as they recieve most funding from the state, hence are unowned.

In an anarchist society few people would have much time for elitism.

[toth8]

Because they would be free to associate with whoever they chose. If the Ivy League didn't want ungifted students, then why is that a problem?

[untermensche]

How do you know?

In an anarchist society the teachers and students would take them over as they recieve most funding from the state, hence are unowned.

In an anarchist society few people would have much time for elitism.
Why's that? (the part about not much time)

In an Anarchist society people would not be working to constantly increase profits. There would be no neccessity for a company to constanly make bigger and bigger profits to supply the demand of investors.

Why do we have such a rat race now?

The desperate need to create larger and larger profits inherent to the current system has something to do with it.

[Loren Pechtel]

Why's that? (the part about not much time)

In an Anarchist society people would not be working to constantly increase profits. There would be no neccessity for a company to constanly make bigger and bigger profits to supply the demand of investors.

Why do we have such a rat race now?

The desperate need to create larger and larger profits inherent to the current system has something to do with it.

The more profit that's made the more people's standard of living rises.

[untermensche]

The more profit that's made the more people's standard of living rises.
Maybe in fantasyland, but that's not how American so-called capitalism has worked for the last 40 years.

[psikeyhackr]

The more profit that's made the more people's standard of living rises.

YEAH RIGHT!

I'm supposed to spend my Standard of Living on a $5,000 laptop so I lose $2,000 in depreciation on it in two years. I'm supposed to be dumber than the economists that don't talk about the NET WORTH of 80% of Americans and how much we lose on depreciation of durable consumer goods.

These economists don't suggest mandatory accounting in our schools either.

Why should we care about elitism in the colleges? Why not just use the internet to distribute good info and short circuit the entire educational system?

No more teacher's dirty looks (http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?p=300610&sid=d7ee0d3d076ddabb3ddead391afc4aa1#300610)

psik

[Bonniedundee]

Why's that? (the part about not much time)

In an Anarchist society people would not be working to constantly increase profits. There would be no neccessity for a company to constanly make bigger and bigger profits to supply the demand of investors.

Why do we have such a rat race now?

The desperate need to create larger and larger profits inherent to the current system has something to do with it.By time I meant more tolerance, they would have little tolerance or just generally go in for such crap as elitism.

[Bonniedundee]

The more profit that's made the more people's standard of living rises.No the more technology that is invented is one way to raise standards of living. Profit is neither here nor there, you are just universaling the current system again.

And that is only one way of raising standards of living, it doesn't help much with people finding fulfilling and creative work, as can be seen by western economies today.

[Loren Pechtel]

YEAH RIGHT!

I'm supposed to spend my Standard of Living on a $5,000 laptop so I lose $2,000 in depreciation on it in two years. I'm supposed to be dumber than the economists that don't talk about the NET WORTH of 80% of Americans and how much we lose on depreciation of durable consumer goods.

These economists don't suggest mandatory accounting in our schools either.

Why should we care about elitism in the colleges? Why not just use the internet to distribute good info and short circuit the entire educational system?

No more teacher's dirty looks (http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?p=300610&sid=d7ee0d3d076ddabb3ddead391afc4aa1#300610)

psik

Profit increases the amount of capital. The more capital the more the standard of living rises.

[Loren Pechtel]

No the more technology that is invented is one way to raise standards of living. Profit is neither here nor there, you are just universaling the current system again.

And that is only one way of raising standards of living, it doesn't help much with people finding fulfilling and creative work, as can be seen by western economies today.

It's not just technology but the investment in tools.

Those with capital need to invest it somewhere. Fundamentally, that comes down to building the means of production. As the easier pickings are done they have to invest in more expensive things.

[psikeyhackr]

Profit increases the amount of capital. The more capital the more the standard of living rises.

Economists don't regard my car as capital, but if it breaks down money has to come out of my pocket to fix it. Does that increase my standard of living?

That would mean the more often it breaks down the better. ROFL

It increases my auto mechanics standard of living.

Actually I think standard of living is bullsh!t. There is income and net worth. And everyone should understand accounting.

psik

[Loren Pechtel]

Economists don't regard my car as capital, but if it breaks down money has to come out of my pocket to fix it. Does that increase my standard of living?

That would mean the more often it breaks down the better. ROFL

It increases my auto mechanics standard of living.

Actually I think standard of living is bullsh!t. There is income and net worth. And everyone should understand accounting.

psik

You're looking at a maintenance cost, not capital!

The more is invested in the means of production the more production there will be and the higher the standard of living will be. The amount of capital per laborer is a *BIG* factor in the standard of living.

[psikeyhackr]

You're looking at a maintenance cost, not capital!

The more is invested in the means of production the more production there will be and the higher the standard of living will be. The amount of capital per laborer is a *BIG* factor in the standard of living.

My point was my car isn't CAPITAL according to economists. Even though I need it to get to work in a reasonable time.

We should invest in Micro$oft so they can produce more stuff like VISTA and people must upgrade their computers to run it. All hail the GREAT GDP!

Don't say anything about the depreciation of all of those computers.

ROFLMAO

Oh, were those CAPITAL computers or CONSUMER computers?

psik

[coloradoatheist]

Economists don't regard my car as capital, but if it breaks down money has to come out of my pocket to fix it. Does that increase my standard of living?

That would mean the more often it breaks down the better. ROFL

It increases my auto mechanics standard of living.

Actually I think standard of living is bullsh!t. There is income and net worth. And everyone should understand accounting.

psik


They are both important, wealth along with enjoying life are both important and you have to find the balance in life. Living in a 400 square foot apt in a crime riddled neighborhood may make you richer much faster, it's not going to be fun, but also living in a 4,000 sq foot house that you can barely make payments and always worrying about money isn't either.


Mike

[Pragmatista]

Yes, but the idea that you can get a free education in the US because you can play football is mind-bogglingly ludicrous to me.

The best predictor of future academic performance is past academic performance, not your fucking throwing ability.
Depends on what you mean by an "education." What passes for the education of professional football students is a unique arrangement based on treating the accreditation standards and NCAA rules as inverse problems.

[psikeyhackr]

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=935607276

[Andy]

The fact that there are incredibly expensive and exclusive "feeder" schools to schools like Harvard demonstrates the elitism of the system.

Some are flown through life on a magic carpet. Expensive prep school, Expensive college, job in the higher levels of the heirarchy without working your way up.

And most must make it through the muck and mud this heirarchical system forces upon them to achieve anything.

Equal opportunity.

The biggest lie of capitalism.
I'm sorry, but I have to let you know that you really don't know what you're talking about here. Right now I'm a high school junior and currently attend Phillips Academy, Andover, one of your so called "feeder schools." Not only that, I was wise enough to choose two parents who both attended Harvard College. I'm set right? Wrong. The system is immeasurably different from 40, even 20 years ago. Merit plays a much greater role than connections now. I, nor anyone at my school simply "waltzes" into the Ivy League school of their choice. We worked damn hard to get in here, and we work even harder to go to a great college. The top prep schools are by now means playgrounds of the aristocracy. The average -average- Andover student scores within the top 4% in the nation on SATs and other standardized tests. Almost every member of the student body was in the top 10% of their previous school. We aren't rich slackers.

Andover students aren't all a bunch of rich preps either. Admittedly tuition is high (approx. $38,000/year boarding); however, over 60% of the student body recieves a financial aid package and over 10% are on full scholarships. Andover is also preparing to commense "need-blind" admissions which guarantees that the school will provide any and all financial aid support necessary for a successful applicant to attend.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that your comments here are way off base. Like the Ivies and other top colleges, the top prep schools have also undergone a renassaince of sorts. Instead of a bunch of blue bloods, if you came and visited you'd find people from all places as diverse as South Dakota, New York, Louisiana, even Thailand. Merit is the primary determinant here, and no Andover student is guaranteed admission to any college. I hope this post clears up some misconceptions you have.

[psikeyhackr]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that your comments here are way off base. Like the Ivies and other top colleges, the top prep schools have also undergone a renassaince of sorts. Instead of a bunch of blue bloods, if you came and visited you'd find people from all places as diverse as South Dakota, New York, Louisiana, even Thailand. Merit is the primary determinant here, and no Andover student is guaranteed admission to any college. I hope this post clears up some misconceptions you have.

But the question is, can the proper use of the internet make this entire system obsolete? A lot of the problem is most grammar schools are SH!T!

I regarded it as normal at the time but looking back I learned more important information as a result of stimulus from reading lots of sci-fi books than from my grammar school teachers. But like everything else the intellectual value of what claims to be SF has gone down since the 60's. The Star Wars effect. LOL

So a recommended reading list for kids could help restructure the system. Help the kids recognize bullsh!t faster.

But I guess fundamentally the way the system works depends on people hiding info from each other. Any moron can use that tactic. LOL

psik

[untermensche]

I'm sorry, but I have to let you know that you really don't know what you're talking about here. Right now I'm a high school junior and currently attend Phillips Academy, Andover, one of your so called "feeder schools." Not only that, I was wise enough to choose two parents who both attended Harvard College. I'm set right? Wrong. The system is immeasurably different from 40, even 20 years ago. Merit plays a much greater role than connections now. I, nor anyone at my school simply "waltzes" into the Ivy League school of their choice. We worked damn hard to get in here, and we work even harder to go to a great college. The top prep schools are by now means playgrounds of the aristocracy. The average -average- Andover student scores within the top 4% in the nation on SATs and other standardized tests. Almost every member of the student body was in the top 10% of their previous school. We aren't rich slackers.

Andover students aren't all a bunch of rich preps either. Admittedly tuition is high (approx. $38,000/year boarding); however, over 60% of the student body recieves a financial aid package and over 10% are on full scholarships. Andover is also preparing to commense "need-blind" admissions which guarantees that the school will provide any and all financial aid support necessary for a successful applicant to attend.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that your comments here are way off base. Like the Ivies and other top colleges, the top prep schools have also undergone a renassaince of sorts. Instead of a bunch of blue bloods, if you came and visited you'd find people from all places as diverse as South Dakota, New York, Louisiana, even Thailand. Merit is the primary determinant here, and no Andover student is guaranteed admission to any college. I hope this post clears up some misconceptions you have.
Perched on your magic carpet all is well.

God forbid you fall off and have to make it like most.

Good luck, you may one day grow to see the injustice of the system you defend.

[chapka]

This is just bizarre. For the most part, the social "hierarchy" is pretty much irrelevant to the people who actually run things. Except for society page reporters, people in this country don't really care that much about who your parents were or where your money came from. People with money have power. I don't accept for a minute that "old money" still means anything to a significant number of people.
I'm not talking about some meaningless social hierarchy. I'm talking about a power hierarchy. A very dangerous and destructive power hierarchy presently.

Then you'll have to explain what you're talking about. When you say that people "from the right family" have an easier time than the rest of us, it sure as hell sounds like a social hierarchy to me.

So what exactly constitutes a "power hierarchy," and if it isn't restricted to certain families, what exactly makes it "elitist"?

[Loren Pechtel]

Perched on your magic carpet all is well.

God forbid you fall off and have to make it like most.

Good luck, you may one day grow to see the injustice of the system you defend.

In other words, he's right.

[untermensche]

In other words, he's right.
There is nothing to agree with.

It would take some time to examine this notion of "merit" that this person throws around as if it had some clear definition.

Rabid obedience and the desire to impress those in authority are not meritorious to anyone that has problems with illegitimate hierarchies.

[Loren Pechtel]

In other words, he's right.
There is nothing to agree with.

It would take some time to examine this notion of "merit" that this person throws around as if it had some clear definition.

Rabid obedience and the desire to impress those in authority are not meritorious to anyone that has problems with illegitimate hierarchies.

He's stating what it takes to get where he is.

Your attack was completely off target, thus basically admitting his position was sound.

Just because you don't have what it takes to get into Harvard doesn't mean that it's not based on ability rather than elitism.

[untermensche]

He's stating what it takes to get where he is.

Your attack was completely off target, thus basically admitting his position was sound.

Just because you don't have what it takes to get into Harvard doesn't mean that it's not based on ability rather than elitism.
He has not shown me what it takes.

He simply distorts my argument and somehow concludes I have said that the students working desperately hard to impress their superiors are "rich slackers".

But as I have said, working hard to impress members of a power structure is not in itself meritorious. It depends on the power structure and what the power structure is doing.

[chapka]

Merit is the primary determinant here, and no Andover student is guaranteed admission to any college.

I'd just like to quibble a bit with this. While I agree that a prep school education isn't the free pass it used to be, it's worth noting that the "merit" you're talking about isn't totally unrelated to family income or parental education level. The SATs and the other tests prep schools and colleges use for admissions are biased in some ways; most notably, whatever ETS says, towards kids who are able to prepare for them. And of course kids with parents who care about education, and can afford to send their kids to good, or even adequate, schools (public or private), have opportunities to learn that not all kids stuck in poor (public or private) schools have. Cramming for prep school entrance exams is easier for kids who don't have to work five nights a week after school than for kids who do. Boarding school of course isn't an option for many kids right now, even with a free ride, if they have to work to support their families. And of course any system involving entrance interviews (I don't know if prep school admissions do) is going to be subject to some potentially huge cultural biases.

This is not to say that untermensche is right and that prep schools, on balance, promote elitism rather than countering it. But I do think it's important to note that as long as parental money and parental attitudes make as huge a difference in educational outcomes as they do, then the system will always be biased towards children whose parents can afford to, and want to, get them the education they want.

[chapka]

But as I have said, working hard to impress members of a power structure is not in itself meritorious. It depends on the power structure and what the power structure is doing.

But you still haven't explained what "power structure" you're talking about. You've shifted from kids from the "right" families to some vague construct by which it can be proven that every success is itself a failure.

So be specific. What consititutes the "power structure" you're talking about it and how, exactly, do Harvard's admissions policies help to maintain it?

[untermensche]

But you still haven't explained what "power structure" you're talking about. You've shifted from kids from the "right" families to some vague construct by which it can be proven that every success is itself a failure.

So be specific. What consititutes the "power structure" you're talking about it and how, exactly, do Harvard's admissions policies help to maintain it?
It is not the same power structure in a classroom as in a corporation, but the key ingredient is obedience.

That is the merit. The level of obedience to those allegedly "above" you.

[Loren Pechtel]

He's stating what it takes to get where he is.

Your attack was completely off target, thus basically admitting his position was sound.

Just because you don't have what it takes to get into Harvard doesn't mean that it's not based on ability rather than elitism.
He has not shown me what it takes.

He simply distorts my argument and somehow concludes I have said that the students working desperately hard to impress their superiors are "rich slackers".

But as I have said, working hard to impress members of a power structure is not in itself meritorious. It depends on the power structure and what the power structure is doing.

:confused: :confused:

He's not working hard to impress a power structure. He's working hard to get into and stay in a very good school.

[untermensche]

He's not working hard to impress a power structure. He's working hard to get into and stay in a very good school.
Both his parents went to Havard and he is in an incredibly expensive and exclusive school which better prepares you than any public school and gives you a better chance to get into a top university.

And I am supposed to see this as a system not preserving privilege.

Absurd!

[chapka]

But you still haven't explained what "power structure" you're talking about. You've shifted from kids from the "right" families to some vague construct by which it can be proven that every success is itself a failure.

So be specific. What consititutes the "power structure" you're talking about it and how, exactly, do Harvard's admissions policies help to maintain it?
It is not the same power structure in a classroom as in a corporation, but the key ingredient is obedience.

That is the merit. The level of obedience to those allegedly "above" you.

How do SAT scores measure obedience?

Even grades don't really reflect "obedience." Beyond a certain low level of obedience, such as not cutting class too often or shouting at the teacher, grades are not based on obedience. And since in most cases everyone meets that basic level of obedience, the grades are based entirely on other factors.

[untermensche]

How do SAT scores measure obedience?

Even grades don't really reflect "obedience." Beyond a certain low level of obedience, such as not cutting class too often or shouting at the teacher, grades are not based on obedience. And since in most cases everyone meets that basic level of obedience, the grades are based entirely on other factors.
Basic level of obedience?

Some are very obedient and some are not very obedient. Those that are not very obedient will not try to impress some complete stranger to get some grade. Their talent will not show itself in an environment where a certain level of obedience is crucial to success.

But a system that wants obedience will begin selecting for it very early.

[chapka]

Basic level of obedience?

Yes. I explained this pretty clearly, I thought. What is your question?

Some are very obedient and some are not very obedient. Those that are not very obedient will not try to impress some complete stranger to get some grade. Their talent will not show itself in an environment where a certain level of obedience is crucial to success.

"Obedience" or the tendency thereto is not a binary proposition.

Yes, people who are not willing to follow some pretty basic rules will not do well in school. Or in life, for that matter. But it's really a pretty low bar, and in my educational experience, I don't recall running into many people who couldn't meet it.

But a system that wants obedience will begin selecting for it very early.

Again: if everyone meets the threshold level of "obedience," and anything above that level is irrelevant to the final grade, then you're not selecting for anything but a very basic level of "obedience."

Your complaint seems to be, "People who don't care about doing well in school often don't do well in school." How does that have anything to do with elitism?

[untermensche]

Your complaint seems to be, "People who don't care about doing well in school often don't do well in school." How does that have anything to do with elitism?
You're right, it's a completely different topic. Internal levels of obedience, that is.

What is of concern within elitist systems is differences in external levels of motivation, and external assitance differences.

So two people with approximately the same talents but different starting points in the heirarchy would be expected to achieve similar levels of achievement. If the heirarchy is not elitist and constrained, that is.

So in a nonconstrained heirarchy you would expect to see the same percentages of people from all economic levels.

Is that what you see at Harvard? An equal amount of people from all economic backgrounds, since it must be assumed talent occurs randomly and shows itself in equal percentages despite the economic status of parents.

[untermensche]

dup

[untermensche]

dup

[chapka]

So in a nonconstrained heirarchy you would expect to see the same percentages of people from all economic levels.

Is that what you see at Harvard? An equal amount of people from all economic backgrounds, since it must be assumed talent occurs randomly and shows itself in equal percentages despite the economic status of parents.

Of course not. But what on earth does this have to do with any of your other posts?

Yes, the children with rich or well-educated parents have an advantage over other children. I've made that point myself several times in this thread. Nobody has ever denied this, as far as I'm aware. If this is all you are arguing, then the thread is over.

However, if you're arguing that the overall effect of Harvard's admissions policies is to decrease rather than increase social mobility, or if you're arguing that Harvard's admissions policies elevate mindless "obedient" sheep at the expense of some other category of people, then you need to present some evidence.

To put it another way: what exactly is your point?

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, the children with rich or well-educated parents have an advantage over other children. I've made that point myself several times in this thread. Nobody has ever denied this, as far as I'm aware. If this is all you are arguing, then the thread is over.

However, if you're arguing that the overall effect of Harvard's admissions policies is to decrease rather than increase social mobility, or if you're arguing that Harvard's admissions policies elevate mindless "obedient" sheep at the expense of some other category of people, then you need to present some evidence.

To put it another way: what exactly is your point?

Socialism 101:

People are all the same. Where one ends up in life is entirely a matter of what advantages/disadvantages one grew up with.

Thus admission to Harvard is purely a matter of money getting one into good prep schools and has nothing to do with how good a student one is.


Just because this flies in the face of reality is no reason not to believe the truth!

Never mind that in most cases whether someone is a good student or not is pretty much set before they ever enter school.

You have to believe!

[OripahsTrebor]

Yes, the children with rich or well-educated parents have an advantage over other children. I've made that point myself several times in this thread. Nobody has ever denied this, as far as I'm aware. If this is all you are arguing, then the thread is over.

However, if you're arguing that the overall effect of Harvard's admissions policies is to decrease rather than increase social mobility, or if you're arguing that Harvard's admissions policies elevate mindless "obedient" sheep at the expense of some other category of people, then you need to present some evidence.

To put it another way: what exactly is your point?

Socialism 101:

People are all the same. Where one ends up in life is entirely a matter of what advantages/disadvantages one grew up with.

Thus admission to Harvard is purely a matter of money getting one into good prep schools and has nothing to do with how good a student one is.


Just because this flies in the face of reality is no reason not to believe the truth!

Never mind that in most cases whether someone is a good student or not is pretty much set before they ever enter school.

You have to believe!

So you are an advocate of extreme genetic determinism?

[untermensche]

Of course not. But what on earth does this have to do with any of your other posts?

Yes, the children with rich or well-educated parents have an advantage over other children. I've made that point myself several times in this thread. Nobody has ever denied this, as far as I'm aware. If this is all you are arguing, then the thread is over.

However, if you're arguing that the overall effect of Harvard's admissions policies is to decrease rather than increase social mobility, or if you're arguing that Harvard's admissions policies elevate mindless "obedient" sheep at the expense of some other category of people, then you need to present some evidence.

To put it another way: what exactly is your point?
Talk of obedience and how so-called achievement is a measure of this, is for another thread.

As far as maintaining a social heirarchy and how elite universities do this, I don't know if we differ on that subject at all. The elite are more likely to get in, so the system perpetuates the social stratification.

A university system that tried to break the stratification would have a greater percentage from the lower strata's than from the upper. Not just some token representation from the lower strata's.

[Andy]

Perched on your magic carpet all is well.

God forbid you fall off and have to make it like most.

Good luck, you may one day grow to see the injustice of the system you defend.

ad hominem- because if you can't attack the argument, attack the person!

[untermensche]

Perched on your magic carpet all is well.

God forbid you fall off and have to make it like most.

Good luck, you may one day grow to see the injustice of the system you defend.

ad hominem- because if you can't attack the argument, attack the person!
What exactly is the insult?

That some person in a very expensive and exclusive prep school has things a little easier than most?

Excuse me.

[Andy]

Merit is the primary determinant here, and no Andover student is guaranteed admission to any college.

I'd just like to quibble a bit with this. While I agree that a prep school education isn't the free pass it used to be, it's worth noting that the "merit" you're talking about isn't totally unrelated to family income or parental education level. The SATs and the other tests prep schools and colleges use for admissions are biased in some ways; most notably, whatever ETS says, towards kids who are able to prepare for them. And of course kids with parents who care about education, and can afford to send their kids to good, or even adequate, schools (public or private), have opportunities to learn that not all kids stuck in poor (public or private) schools have. Cramming for prep school entrance exams is easier for kids who don't have to work five nights a week after school than for kids who do. Boarding school of course isn't an option for many kids right now, even with a free ride, if they have to work to support their families. And of course any system involving entrance interviews (I don't know if prep school admissions do) is going to be subject to some potentially huge cultural biases.

This is not to say that untermensche is right and that prep schools, on balance, promote elitism rather than countering it. But I do think it's important to note that as long as parental money and parental attitudes make as huge a difference in educational outcomes as they do, then the system will always be biased towards children whose parents can afford to, and want to, get them the education they want.
In life, much less college admissions, are there economic, political and opportunity disparities between people who came from privileged backgrounds and those who don't? Of course. It'd be foolish to say otherwise; however, are colleges and prep schools such as Harvard and Andover attempting to perpetuate these differences? Once, maybe, but certainly not now. I find it somewhat incredulous that a school such as Harvard, whose need-blind policies and recent guarantee to cover all tuition for students whose families earn less than $60,000 (ie. making tuition free for approximately 65% of the population) can be condemned as seeking to solidify class differences. The same applies to Andover, which is beginning to implement similar policies, though a relative lack of funds makes this proposition much more difficult. I doubt any system trying to keep the prolitariat down would try to ferverently to recruit gifted but low income students.

As for your other point, that achievement is influenced by parental involvement, wealth, education, etc. is also true, and poorer students will face greater difficulties. However, again I have to point out that while these differences exist, almost every school from Harvard to Andover to Podunk Elementary wants to rectify this situation. There is no conspiracy to keep the common man down. In addition, Harvard and its peers are, ultimately meritocratic. They can't deny one exceptionally well-qualified but possibly high society candidate in the hope that every below average candidate has some sort of sob story but, once he's at Harvard will spread his wings and fly. That would merely be anti-elitism. I know from my work in the admissions office here however that the officers do recognize that these difference between high and low income students exist, and offer some benefit of the doubt. Ultimately, Andover can't offer every student in the country SAT study sessions while insuring that every applicant has caring parents who want to their child to succeed, but they do what they can. The key I just want to note is that there is a drive to make these schools as meritocratic as possible, and that something is being done.

Finally, just a note on prep school entrance requirements. First let me say that my arrival at boarding school was a bit unexpected, I ended up at boarding school only after Hurricane Katrina flooded my home and closed my school in New Orleans, where I am originally from. I had a somewhat truncated admissions process, and haven't personally experienced the system, but the general procedure is similar to college applications. You send in information regarding you middle school grades, SSAT scores (middle school SAT), teacher recommendations, a list of activities, etc. etc. Interviews are available but optional, and they will come to you. I also know that at least Andover attempts to recruit low income but high achieving students. Every year the school sends out several hundred letters to high scoring students with low income zip codes asking them to apply.

[Andy]

dub

[Andy]

What exactly is the insult?

That some person in a very expensive and exclusive prep school has things a little easier than most?

Excuse me.

Well you're implying that I'm some sort of rich, spoiled snob who has no idea how the other 99/100th live and instead falsely sees the world through diamond encrusted glasses. You also failed to address anything I said

[untermensche]

Well you're implying that I'm some sort of rich, spoiled snob who has no idea how the other 99/100th live and instead falsely sees the world through diamond encrusted glasses. You also failed to address anything I said
You are not evidence of somebody that makes it up by their own efforts alone.

You start the race a mile ahead of many and even those who work as hard as you end up a mile behind in the end.

[Andy]

He's not working hard to impress a power structure. He's working hard to get into and stay in a very good school.
Both his parents went to Havard and he is in an incredibly expensive and exclusive school which better prepares you than any public school and gives you a better chance to get into a top university.

And I am supposed to see this as a system not preserving privilege.

Absurd!

Perhaps I'm here because I earned it? Just saying, it is a possibility. I was third in my class at my previous school and scored in the 99th percentile on the SSATs. Then there's the fact that Andover doesn't even know where my parents attended college, a bit of information they'd need before giving me a leg up. Just putting that out there.

[untermensche]

...There is no conspiracy to keep the common man down...
So 99% of the public schools turned to shit by some coincidence?

A heirarchy is like a pyramid. There is less and less room at the top. The top needs very few people, and it cannot accomidate too many people.

One way to maintain such a heirarchy is to offer an inferior education to the majority.

[untermensche]

...Perhaps I'm here because I earned it? Just saying, it is a possibility. I was third in my class at my previous school and scored in the 99th percentile on the SSATs. Then there's the fact that Andover doesn't even know where my parents attended college, a bit of information they'd need before giving me a leg up. Just putting that out there...
You did earn it. But my point is that many many will not get the same chance to earn it you did because of the income of their parents and the communities in which they live.

You are not responsible for the system or responsible for tearing it down.

You have a responsibility to your future family to achieve as high as you can.

You do not live in an ideal society. You live in a society of winners and losers, and a system which ensures there are many losers, even if it is able to pick out and turn a few losers into winners.

[Andy]

...There is no conspiracy to keep the common man down...
So 99% of the public schools turned to shit by some coincidence?

A heirarchy is like a pyramid. There is less and less room at the top. The top needs very few people, and it cannot accomidate too many people.

One way to maintain such a heirarchy is to offer an inferior education to the majority.

That's a pretty serious allegation. Do you have any proof that the entire Department of Education, the majority of the State Departments of Education, most state govenors and legislatures, not to mention principals, teachers, school board members and probably even some public school parents are engaged in a multi-decade, nationwide conspiracy to dumb the nation down?

[untermensche]

That's a pretty serious allegation. Do you have any proof that the entire Department of Education, the majority of the State Departments of Education, most state govenors and legislatures, not to mention principals, teachers, school board members and probably even some public school parents are engaged in a multi-decade, nationwide conspiracy to dumb the nation down?
The private schools are of course the models for methods to get a better education, and how high to set expectations.

Were the private school models adopted and expectations adopted?

Or were other models and expectations adopted?

Not the business model of easily firing bad teachers, which is a different factor, but the educational model, the curriculum and texts used.

But there is a fact of life; a heirarchy that does not need many highly educated people, percentage wise, not in total numbers, need not care about a poor educational start for the majority.

[Loren Pechtel]

Never mind that in most cases whether someone is a good student or not is pretty much set before they ever enter school.

You have to believe!

So you are an advocate of extreme genetic determinism?

I didn't say it was due to genetics. A lot of it is early parenting, although there is no doubt genetics plays a role.

[Loren Pechtel]

...There is no conspiracy to keep the common man down...
So 99% of the public schools turned to shit by some coincidence?

A heirarchy is like a pyramid. There is less and less room at the top. The top needs very few people, and it cannot accomidate too many people.

One way to maintain such a heirarchy is to offer an inferior education to the majority.

Not a coincidence. The public schools have gone to shit because they've been overrun with liberalism.

[untermensche]

Not a coincidence. The public schools have gone to shit because they've been overrun with liberalism.
Sounds like an absurd scapegoating.

Liberalism? That is nothing but a positive thing.

And the country over this time has been predominately controlled by Republicans.

I don't buy it.

[coloradoatheist]

Not a coincidence. The public schools have gone to shit because they've been overrun with liberalism.
Sounds like an absurd scapegoating.

Liberalism? That is nothing but a positive thing.

And the country over this time has been predominately controlled by Republicans.

I don't buy it.


The country maybe, but not the schools. The problem with schools is a whole different thread.


Mike

[untermensche]

The country maybe, but not the schools. The problem with schools is a whole different thread.


Mike
We can look at the efforts made by Republicans which make the problem worse, like rediculous and worthless tests that public school students now spend their time preparing for instead of getting a decent education.

[coloradoatheist]

The country maybe, but not the schools. The problem with schools is a whole different thread.


Mike
We can look at the efforts made by Republicans which make the problem worse, like rediculous and worthless tests that public school students now spend their time preparing for instead of getting a decent education.

If the tests measure what they should learn they are good. The major problem is that kids aren't held accountable for their efforts. Also the liberal philosophy is that everyone should graduate even if it means they can't read.

Mike

[premjan]

I'm not sure that "graduating high school" should be a great big stumbling block to cross - rather you probably ought to get certified for each grade you complete. So rather than saying "I never finished high school" what's wrong with saying "I completed 11th grade"? Nationalized tests are a good way to check whether basic curriculum material is being imbibed or not. Put the two together and there is no need to focus on "graduation" over standardized academic performance. Then learning how to think independently etc. which is harder to measure on a test, has to be handled in a different manner.

[untermensche]

If the tests measure what they should learn they are good. The major problem is that kids aren't held accountable for their efforts. Also the liberal philosophy is that everyone should graduate even if it means they can't read.

Mike
It must be nice to live in a fantasy world where problems can be reduced to such absurd pablum as "the liberals did it".

There is always the question that never gets asked.

What would a rigid heirarchal society like American corporate capitalism do if it gave all people a really good education? Where would they go? What would they do?

That kind of system relies on most getting a poor education, to fulfill the menial tasks the upper classes need done for them to be the upper class. A person cannot assume an upper class on their own efforts, they need others working for them to achieve that.

It is a structure that needs relatively few leaders and many many willing servants.

And is it any wonder that most get a crappy education from this system?

[coloradoatheist]

If the tests measure what they should learn they are good. The major problem is that kids aren't held accountable for their efforts. Also the liberal philosophy is that everyone should graduate even if it means they can't read.

Mike
It must be nice to live in a fantasy world where problems can be reduced to such absurd pablum as "the liberals did it".

There is always the question that never gets asked.

What would a rigid heirarchal society like American corporate capitalism do if it gave all people a really good education? Where would they go? What would they do?

That kind of system relies on most getting a poor education, to fulfill the menial tasks the upper classes need done for them to be the upper class. A person cannot assume an upper class on their own efforts, they need others working for them to achieve that.

It is a structure that needs relatively few leaders and many many willing servants.

And is it any wonder that most get a crappy education from this system?

you are right that it's more complicated than just saying it's liberal thoughts. However it's not corporations that are asking schools to teach the subjects that schools teach (history, english (maybe that one), biology, chemistry, high level math, ). Most of those subjects are from the "liberal" thought of teaching kids just for the basics of knowledge instead of anything practical. If corporations had their choice it would be the practical skills (computer, presentation, leading, communications, accounting, finance).

Mike

[premjan]

In some parts of Europe, they have separate vocational and academic streams. An academic education is more useful for someone considering higher education.

[untermensche]

you are right that it's more complicated than just saying it's liberal thoughts. However it's not corporations that are asking schools to teach the subjects that schools teach (history, english (maybe that one), biology, chemistry, high level math, ). Most of those subjects are from the "liberal" thought of teaching kids just for the basics of knowledge instead of anything practical. If corporations had their choice it would be the practical skills (computer, presentation, leading, communications, accounting, finance).

Mike
Any capitalist will tell me you get the quality of teacher accoring to how much you pay and how many other benefits you give that teacher.

Why do they never say that giving teachers more money and giving them more benefits is a good start?

[coloradoatheist]

you are right that it's more complicated than just saying it's liberal thoughts. However it's not corporations that are asking schools to teach the subjects that schools teach (history, english (maybe that one), biology, chemistry, high level math, ). Most of those subjects are from the "liberal" thought of teaching kids just for the basics of knowledge instead of anything practical. If corporations had their choice it would be the practical skills (computer, presentation, leading, communications, accounting, finance).

Mike
Any capitalist will tell me you get the quality of teacher accoring to how much you pay and how many other benefits you give that teacher.

Why do they never say that giving teachers more money and giving them more benefits is a good start?



There's definitely talk about more money for teachers, smaller class sizes but also a capitalist would say that you have to reward teachers individually to get them to do better instead of bland pay of years and education schedule teachers have.

Mike

[untermensche]

There's definitely talk about more money for teachers, smaller class sizes but also a capitalist would say that you have to reward teachers individually to get them to do better instead of bland pay of years and education schedule teachers have.

Mike
But you have to attract the good teachers before you can reward them. If you simply want to reward some attracted by what is out there now, that is not acceptable.

[starling]

One of the ways we become elitist bastards is by misappropriating blame, or by caring about who's fault it is at all. When we blame the victim, because they just didn't try hard enough to escape, then we risk supporting the people who victimize, aka "the injustice of the system." In supporting it, we only create more, and the delusion continues ad infinitum.

We worked damn hard to get in here, and we work even harder to go to a great college.Are you implying that people who do not make it into Harvard don't work as hard? Could there be people who worked just as hard as you did, but were still refused or somehow deflected away from their chance of attending? Why do you value working hard at all? Shouldn't you value accomplishment instead? If you work hard your entire life and never take it easy, isn't that just a stupid way to live? I mean, working hard to achieve great things is fine, but that's because you achieve great things that help us. Who cares whether you worked hard just to get into school?

which guarantees that the school will provide any and all financial aid support necessary for a successful applicant to attend.I think the important thing to note here is that schools are not looking for money. But are they looking for merit? What does it take to be a successful applicant? Powerful ideas, or good grades? What does it take, the ability to cause change, or a past record of stability? Innovative thinking or tireless studying? Success isn't so easy to measure, and when They design the application process, remember that they're not always thinking of the good of mankind, or for the benefit of the students.

Merit is the primary determinant here, and no Andover student is guaranteed admission to any college. I hope this post clears up some misconceptions you have.Are you on financial aid? I agree that the application process has improved a lot, but since the 50's college costs have pentupled at least. I'm very low income, and have seen that some of the prejudice and meaningless persecution has been transferred to the financial aid department. You only have to prove you're an excellent student once to get admitted, but on financial aid you have to prove to them time and time again, and you better believe they're just waiting for you to screw up so they can get someone hungrier and more desperate in your place. I don't see that as condusive to a nurturing study environment. Just saying.

are colleges and prep schools such as Harvard and Andover attempting to perpetuate these differences? Once, maybe, but certainly not now.I'd like to see your proof of that. Is it just because the students have different skin colors now? Are students expected to thrive and empowered, or are they expected to produce reliable results and punished or eliminated when they stray? Class differences are not always achieved by excluding students, but sometimes by herding students into their relatively restrictive separate roles. One of the goals of college is to convince you that college is important, so that in the future you will be more likely to pay attention to someone's college qualifications, and thereby ensure that most people are discriminated against, and not all of them by choice.

Andover can't offer every student in the country SAT study sessions while insuring that every applicant has caring parents who want to their child to succeed, but they do what they can.I hope you're sure of that. I really hope they do.

What I wouldn't have given to attend a boarding school, but hurricaine Katrina never came to my house. I'm glad at least you had a chance to enjoy life.

[chapka]

As far as maintaining a social heirarchy and how elite universities do this, I don't know if we differ on that subject at all. The elite are more likely to get in, so the system perpetuates the social stratification.

This is like saying, "Ping-pong balls float, so this lead weight with a ping-pong ball tied to it will float." It might be true, or it might not be true, depending on how heavy the weight is.

If schools admit people simply because they are "elite," then yes, they perpetuate the problem. A great many schools used to work this way, and some still do. Harvard is not one of them.

If schools attempt to select on merit, and still don't achieve a perfect-world meritocracy in each graduating class, then it doesn't logically follow that therefore they are "perpetuat[ing] the social stratification."

If the "elite" of high school students are the products of a few prep schools (which I'm accepting purely for the sake of argument), and Harvard accepts a class composed half of Groton, Choate, Andover and Exeter students and half of talented kids from public schools, then the graduating class of Harvard - the new "elite" - is significantly less stratified as the high school "elite."

In fact, of course, preppies compose only a tiny proportion of Harvard's class; the majority of students are from public schools.

A university system that tried to break the stratification would have a greater percentage from the lower strata's than from the upper. Not just some token representation from the lower strata's.

What on earth makes you think lower-income students, or however else you define "lower strata," are "some token representation" at Harvard today? This is not true of Harvard to the best of my knowledge, and it's certainly not true of Yale.

A university system that was dedicated to perpetuating the stratification would not admit "lower strata" students at all. It's easy to imaing what this "stratus perpetuating" school would look like; it would look like Harvard in the 1940s. Harvard may not meet your definition of perfectly egalitarian now, but as long as there is an established order going into college, and Harvard's class is more egalitarian (by whatever definition) than that group, then it is simply incorrect to say that Harvard is perpetuating that order.

[chapka]

What would a rigid heirarchal society like American corporate capitalism do if it gave all people a really good education? Where would they go? What would they do?

Just what they usually do.

With the best education in the world, some students are going to be better fitted, by genetics, environment, or otherwise, for different kinds of jobs. In your egalitarian world, where everyone got a "really good education," we would still have doctors and janitors; just better educated doctors and janitors.

Right now, there are a lot of people in this country who go to college who frankly would probably be better off in a skilled trade. If you like working on cars but hate math and reading, you are probably better off being a good, happy auto mechanic than a miserable low-level middle manager with a business degree. Probably better paid, too. But there's a social stigma associated with skilled trades. That social stigma distorts college outcomes much more than any Ivy League admissions policy.

Someone who does menial tasks doesn't have to be poorly educated. They just have to be less skilled than the other people who are trying to get more stimulating or remunerative work. A hundred years ago, the people who did this menial work mostly couldn't read or write, and were much more poorly educated in just about every field than our modern-day janitors. And yet there are still janitors.

[Loren Pechtel]

Not a coincidence. The public schools have gone to shit because they've been overrun with liberalism.
Sounds like an absurd scapegoating.

Liberalism? That is nothing but a positive thing.

And the country over this time has been predominately controlled by Republicans.

I don't buy it.

The problem is that students aren't all identical. Liberal philosophy says people are all the same, it's a matter of advantages one gets. Thus we get classes taught to the lowest common denominator.


We can look at the efforts made by Republicans which make the problem worse, like rediculous and worthless tests that public school students now spend their time preparing for instead of getting a decent education.

If the tests measure what they should learn they are good. The major problem is that kids aren't held accountable for their efforts. Also the liberal philosophy is that everyone should graduate even if it means they can't read.

The problem is that no test that can be done in a reasonable period of time can cover everything. Thus we get the current garbage of teaching to the test.

I also agree about the problem of undeserved grades. I can understand the problem of not wanting to hold a student back because of one F but when you tolerate a F you generally condemn the student to a lifetime of failure.

Personally, I favor a different approach. A system more like college where classes don't have grades, just prerequisites.

To make this viable would require larger schools and busses for transport but I think it would be worth it.

If you fail a class you have to retake it rather than the next one.

I would also offer classes in various speed levels. Yes, there is the danger of this being used for discriminatory purposes like it often has in the past but if the rules are standardized I don't think it's a big problem. You get an A and the presumption is that you should take the next class at a faster level. Get an F and you retake the current class at a slower level. Get a D and you take the next class at a slower level.

I would also increase the school day to perhaps 10 hours but this is dependant on how you are doing in school. If you're behind grade level you take the full 10 hours, period. If you're ahead you can have some of your time as play, or, with parental permission, leave. Thus there is a very direct benefit to the students to do well.

We worked damn hard to get in here, and we work even harder to go to a great college.Are you implying that people who do not make it into Harvard don't work as hard? Could there be people who worked just as hard as you did, but were still refused or somehow deflected away from their chance of attending?

It's not just a matter of working hard but working smart. Working hard but inefficiently isn't the road to success.