"To the Yale Community,
I am writing to inform you of a criminal investigation involving an admissions scheme. . . . Yale has been the victim. . . .The corrupt behavior alleged by the Department of Justice is an affront to our university's deeply held values of inclusion and fairness. . . ."
Peter Salovey, President, Yale University
Elite colleges are not a meritocracy of brains, because America is not a meritocracy of brains.
Values are in conflict: property rights vs. equal opportunity.
The Yale president said Yale was scammed. A federal investigation revealed test fraud and "recruited athlete" rigging arranged by parents. The admissions system is subject to rigging of various advantages and edges. The Yale president is shocked!
This mess comes on the heels of a lawsuit against Harvard claiming Harvard College discriminates against Asians. Harvard allocates about 10% of the class to Afro-Americans and 10% to Latinos. Currently about 28% of the class are of Asian ethnicity, and if presumedly "objective" criteria of grades and test scores were used the number of Asians would be higher.
What is going on with elite college admissions?
Harvard and Yale are examples of meritocratic opportunity and status quo privilege, both.
News headline editors express surprise and dismay that the elite colleges reflect complicated socio-ecoomic privilege. They should calm down, and look around. America is not a meritocracy and never has been. Americans--humans--do not want a meritocracy, evidently. Privilege has stood the test of time as a human desire.
It is deep seated human nature to want ones children to succeed, to "get ahead." It goes back to prehistory. People trust inherited leadership. Sometimes they are stuck with it; sometimes they vote for it. We see it everywhere, past and present and across cultures.
It's in the Bible: inherited kingships, family inheritances. Jesus wasn't just picked out of the mass of Jewish children. Jesus has legitimacy as God because he was described as a "begotten" son.
People with possessions want their children to have what they have. Recall that the GOP platform today calls for the full elimination of the inheritance tax. That policy values possession and incumbency. What is yours is yours, and it isn't really yours unless you are free to pass it along to heirs.
The right of possession is a value in direct contradiction to the value of equal opportunity, meritocracy, and the work ethic. Americans value them both. Rich kids start on second base. Or third base. On net Americans are OK with that.
Elite colleges reflect that worldly success in America comes from a mixture of capital and labor, which is to say status quo incumbency as well as meritocratic value-added labor and ability.
In the Harvard lawsuit, the Asian plaintiffs are arguing that Harvard is illegally ignoring merit. Harvard's position is that Afro-Americans and Hispanics face centuries or discrimination, so that actual merit is obscured. Harvard is also acknowledging the power of privilege, saying black and Hispanic students start in a privilege hole, and need a boost just to get to zero.
But what about legacy admissions? Isn't that positive capital? Do children of alumni get an advantage? Yes. Sons and daughters of Harvard graduates are accepted at a higher rate.
It doesn't surprise me. It reflects a simultaneous incumbency privilege and a recognition that future leadership rests on a base of privilege, and meritocracy as reflected in preparation.
I have interviewed some 35 high school students who are Harvard applicants. The young people are nearly universally perfect in every meritocratic way: super intelligent, public spirited, interested in academics, student leaders respected by their peers. Most of these young people have had every academic advantage in life, including being raised in families with academically-gifted parents. The young people have had worldly success modeled for them. Some of them have a parent who attended Harvard.
Having academic and worldly success modeled at home is a priceless inheritance. It is displayed, therefore, in that mix of privilege and merit in the most successful applicants. Young people are standing on the shoulders of their parents.
That is how it works in America.
That is how it works in America.
Fame is inheritable. Political credibility is inheritable. Power is inheritable. Money is inheritable. Elite college admissions are rigged because America is rigged. Americans agree to this. We vote for it. Donald Trump is president, for Gosh sakes.
2 comments:
Yes, we have gradually become a "pay to play" (aka "rigged") system in more and more ways, the college scandal being the latest manifestation of that kind of thinking. The privateers, of course, would like everything monetized, commoditized. Their vision of a "new aristocracy," I submit, is the antithesis of the very foundation of our country which was birthed in rejection of the divine right of Kings and nobles. Thanks to a series of unfortunate court decisions, the foundation of our democratic republic is crumbling under the weight of the "divine right of capital." Capitalism is only compatible with a democratic republic if it is regulated to ensure the promotion of the GENERAL welfare. Unregulated capitalism, such as we have now, produces monopolies which historically squeeze the majority creating increasing scarcity and competition. In such a rigged system it's "every man/woman for themselves," so people trying to game the few remaining healthy aspects of the system should be no surprise.
Andy Seles
One of my sons is a student at a one of the top private universities in the PNW. He got there on his own merit, is a lead musician there, one of the top students, double majoring in a sought-after field, involved in many programs, and very happy with his choice. It’s a challenge to pay for such an expensive school, but given the amount of scholarships he earned, it’s not that far off from a state university.
I was shocked when a friend of the family, who happens to be on the board of trustees for the university, said that he thought it was too bad that my son didn’t go to a “junior college” instead. He felt that students should go where they can afford to go, and since he knew my son had to take out some loans, he thought it was inappropriate for him to be attending that school. That it should be reserved for families that could pay for it and donate appropriately to improve the university.
It appears he was hoping for a legal version of what’s been happening illegally and legally for decades. Elite schools available only to the highest bidder. And prime education opportunities not available to students of lesser economic means.
Won’t that leave our institutions filled with students who may or may not want to be there? Won’t work to stay? May or may not be working to fill the important jobs we need for a viable economy? How does this benefit anyone?
This may be how America works, but for how long? It’s not a sustainable model when soon, all that will be left are a small percentage of wealthy families that burn through their money in a few generations, and the rest living in relative poverty.
Post a Comment