"Alma Mater" has a literal meaning: "nourishing and bounteous mother."
Legacy admissions are good.
I am getting a lot of criticism for this. I will persevere.
Colleges aren't factories. They are cultures of learning and research. They need to create a community. A nurturing mother knows her children.
I was not a legacy nor a recruited athlete. My kids had no interest in attending Harvard. I entered Harvard in 1967. Back then they rejected about six out of seven applicants. Now it about 17 out of 18. Back then people thought standardized tests measured something useful. Maybe the Harvard people thought I showed hustle because of my farm business. The application asked what books one had completed reading in the past year, beyond those assigned in classes. I listed 82 books, so maybe they thought I was a "reader" and they wanted some more of those. Maybe they just wanted one more kid from Oregon. Who knows?
Harvard has a wealth of applicants. I chair the alumni committee that interviews local applicants. We get about 15 applicants a year from the 5,000 graduating seniors in the three counties of "Southern Oregon." Nearly every applicant would thrive at Harvard or anywhere. Nearly all have straight-A grades in advanced classes. Most excel at some activity that requires self-discipline, e.g. the violin or distance running. They eagerly do generous community service. They are perfect in every way. Then they get rejected. There is no room for them. It is heartbreaking to be an interviewer. Nearly all of them are stronger candidates than I was 56 years ago.
The wealth of potential choices means that no one "deserves" admission to Harvard or any of the other dozens of highly selective schools. There is randomness and "fit" at work in the selection process, which people confuse with objective "merit." Students apply to about 15 to 20 schools and get rejected at most of them and accepted at a couple of them, and then they attend one of those. The Supreme Court case and the attention on admission reminds me of college football and basketball recruiting: How many 5-stars did Alabama get? Americans like competitions, including ones that are entirely subjective, like American Idol or beauty pageants, a competition among apples-to-oranges attributes. Who better "deserves" admission to a college, a skilled precocious violinist, or a skilled precocious running back, a skilled precocious book-reader, or a skilled precocious math wizard? We watch a TV reality show -- or college admissions -- and wonder if the judging is "fair." It isn't fair, not in the sense of being objective and measurable. We should not expect it to be. The TV show wants an engaged audience. A college wants a good experience for students and for the institution to protect its long-term interests in having loyal alumni. Is that a surprise?
The "college experience" is an immersive environment and part of its value comes from the sense of being part of something. People wear school colors, compete on their teams, take pride in their facilities, develop meaningful relationships, and care about the curriculum the university offers. Community and tradition build an institution. College is more than a sorting mechanism for identifying great test-takers. That is what the National Merit exam does, not what a college does. Harvard's brand includes traditions and respect for centuries of continuity. The band, the clubs, the school newspaper, the school-sponsored dances and "mixers," the fellow students, the meals eaten with classmates, the bull sessions, are all part of the experience. So is the former attendance of presidents, scientists, business titans, entertainers, journalists, and others who became famous and important.People dislike institutions that are cold, impersonal, by-the-numbers. Such a place isn’t a paradise of "merit." It is a hell of bureaucracy. A college modeled on the DMV take-a-number would have stripped out the nurturing mother notion of Alma Mater. Nurturing mothers know their children.
But isn't it unfair when applied to legacies? I think not because there is no "fair." Everyone contributes something. I am guessing I was the only farm boy with experience negotiating melon prices with produce managers. Maybe that was my "edge." There were other people there whose families owned business empires, and others whose parents and siblings have long history with the institution, and yet others whose parents teach there. And there were some people way smarter than I was. Everyone brings something to the table.
[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com and subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]
18 comments:
Yesterday someone made the point that all of this is somehow related to “wokeness” and “the elites,” but those who go on about it can’t even define it. What it comes down to is, people on the far-White resent any attempt to reduce the disparities that have resulted from the nation’s abominable treatment of Blacks.
There’s no particular reason universities shouldn’t be allowed to make legacy admissions, but there’s no reason diversity shouldn’t be one of the considerations either. Unfortunately, a majority of the Supreme Court think we should adhere to the intent of the Founding Fathers, who were slaveholders.
I muse on pride.
How much importance should we attach to one's achievements?
The vast majority of people do not attend expensive private universities. They exist in their own universe, godlike in their ability to chose who may enter. Many aspire, few succeed, and as such a life is defined for all time.
As for me...peaked in kindergarten.
What a bunch of BS.
I would like to hear from Professor Constance Hilliard, Harvard alum, on this subject. Her perspective as a African-American woman who attended Harvard would be interesting and insightful.
What about the private social and other clubs at Hah-vahd? Do they also discriminate based on legacy status?
My opinion is there should be no more government funding (of any kind) for schools that allow legacy admissions. That is the price they should pay for operating a privilege-protection racket. All of those dollars can be redirected to colleges and universities, public and private, that don't operate like country clubs for the rich and well-connected.
Question: Is wearing a bow tie required for men at Harvard reunions?
Let's accept that all legacy admitees to Harvard are qualified, along with all the others of those admitted. The stories you and Mr. Werlin write about father and son attending the same college and about Alma Mater being nurturing are nice. Maybe the nice stories are enough.
The focus recently about admissions to Harvard and other colleges has been about race. In fact, much of America's focus throughout our history has been about race. Our racist history is an Achilles heel and we know we should fix this problem in our country. But, as long as we keep doing the same thing, we are failing to correct it.
I am at the Oregon Country Fair. I'm sure your readers can conjure up images of the Fair, but I ask that you focus on one aspect. The large crowd here is 99.9% white. I had been thinking of Mr. Werlin's post of yesterday and your statement that you would write today of the good of legacy admissions and the two images juxtaposed.
I imagined this sea of white faces (the occasional non-white only emphasized the whiteness of the crowd) as Harvard legacy applicants. Now choose the 600 or so legacy admissions and, surprise, you have 600 white students. Now, choose a different 600. Same same. Choosing from a group of whites excludes Blacks.
Back when our Constitution was viewed as robust, allowing or even promoting equality, it was a mechanism to help overcome a history of discrimination. Now that our Constitution is viewed as weak and ineffective by the Courts, depending on how white leaders in the past viewed things to interpret its meaning, our strong institutions need to step up to help our country rid itself of this racism.
Harvard, and other strong institutions, should not use a method of selection that has the effect of excluding Blacks. No matter how nice the stories.
Please read the lyrics to "If Six Was Nine" by Jimi Hendrix. It's not a happy song. Phil Arnold is right. For better or worse, America has a mass culture that it didn't have before World War Two. America's elite institutions need to
reflect that mass culture; legacy admissions policies do the opposite. We need to encourage people from all walks of life to participate in leadership roles at the elite level. Maybe the elite institutions of higher learning should expand their class sizes. After all, it wasn't very long ago when most Ivy League institutions excluded women; that's changed now and it's obviously for the best. FWIW, Ivanka Trump went to Penn, just like Don Trump (class of '68); elite passing the baton to elite.
Mike claims that I “resent any attempt to reduce the disparities that have resulted from the nation’s abominable treatment of Blacks”. And, of course, being Mike, he packages this accusation with a gratuitous insult.
Not all disparities are the result of racial discrimination. You have to look at the details of the individual situations and see what the causation actually is.
Blacks are way fewer than 13% of software engineers. But they are also fewer than 13% of computer science graduates. You can’t hire people who don’t exist. Are we “institutionally” or “structurally” racist because we can’t magically conjure black software engineers into existence? “Disparity” does not prove the existence of racial discrimination.
Phil or Polly Arnold advocate exactly what I object to. Legacy admissions are disproportionate? Toss them, regardless of the benefits they may produce. The SAT and ACT produce disproportionate results? Toss them and do “holistic admissions” instead, which lead to higher failure rates among black students, because they are admitted to colleges where they aren’t really academically capable of succeeding (the mismatch problem).
I am fine with trying to help people rise out of bad situations. But I want it done competently, and without carelessly throwing accusations of “racism” around.
I worked as a department manager in a successful commercial insurance brokerage in Chicago. As such, when there was a new hire in the company, they would be brought around to meet me. I would ask them, “who’s your father?” They would look at me quizzically. “Is he an insurance company executive or does he own one of our clients? 9 times out of 10 the answer would be something like “he’s a branch manager at AIG, or “he was the agency in Des Moines.” I would then smile and say, “oh, so you’re in our affirmative action program!” They would again look confused. “Yes, we have an affirmative action program for children of successful white businessmen. Welcome aboard!” One young man complained to me that people in the lunchroom were whispering that he was only hired because his father was President of an insurance co we traded with. I said to him, “Do you think we hired you because you did so well selling computers at Best Buy? Shut up and do your job”. On the other hand, I went out of my way to hire minority applicants. My department was very successful.
Great comment
The stance of the blogger falls into the category of limousine or latte liberal.
Anon, would you become less obnoxiously stereotyping about some “liberal”-whatever THAT is-if THEY ordered an Americano, BLACK?
Get over yourself, girl.
I should clarify my comment above, since there has obviously been some misunderstanding. A widely cited poll done last year by the Southern Poverty Law Center found that about 70% of Republicans believe the core tenets of the Great Replacement, a racist conspiracy theory which posits that white people are being replaced by those who are foreign and nonwhite.
Those are the facts. My opinion is, that’s why right-wing Whites are so up in arms over immigration and affirmative action. It may be unflattering, but it’s not an insult. It’s an opinion based on facts.
Is a History degree from Harvard any better than a History degree from the University of Oregon or Oregon State University? Do Harvardites have a better understanding of history than others, or is a degree from Harvard over-rated?
Harvard is a country club for the children of the rich and elite, and they are really no better than other Top-100 universities. They are living off an old reputation. Their degrees have been diluted.
Defund Harvard and other schools that continue legacy admissions. As funds are redirected to other excellent colleges and universities without this discriminatory and elitist admissions policy, faculty and students will follow the money.
Average, hard-working Joes and Joannes, living paycheck
to paycheck and working multiple jobs to pay the bills, should not be subsidizing schools with these policies. They can support themselves. It is a form of corporate welfare. Harvard is sitting on $50 Billion while most Americans cannot afford to cover a $400 unexpected expense.
I think I read about a recent Pew poll that 75% of Americans are against legacy admissions. Someone can correct me if that is not correct.
Good news, according to Forbes on-line (7-3-23), Johns Hopkins and Amherst College (in Amherst, Mass.) have discontinued legacy admissions.
This maybe off topic, but I’m confused about the big deal with Ivy’s. According to US News, there were ~16 million enrolled college students in the US in 2022 and .4% were enrolled in Ivy League schools. Why do elite schools matter? Is NOT making it into an elite school some kind of “ death sentence”? Here’s one way to look at it: Harvard Corporation (America’s oldest) is sort of like a $40B tax exempt hedge fund with an elite education brand that operates as a private networking club for its members. The education part is really a handy side gig to maintain the “superior education” myth. But what’s the education from there really worth?
For over 4 decades I’ve hired and managed dozens of university grads, coming from big public, to elite universities, including MIT, Princeton and Stanford. Yes, the elite schools often produce some exceptional talent, but pedigrees are not predictors of success or high achievement in most of the marketplace. Some of the most successful people in my network have modest academic pedigrees. But they hustle, are imaginative, connect with people, take risks and collaborate well with others to make things happen. Some of the most savvy and enterprising business leaders I know have little or no college. I also know many elite school grads with very mid-level pedestrian careers.
Am I missing something?
Is a Harvard history degree any better than one from other places, asks Anonymous. In my case, maybe not. I learned as much as my mind could absorb, but there are smarter people than I. What it did do was credentule me and give faculty evaluating graduate school applicants some confidence. Maybe they looked, too, at my Honors Thesis. In any case, I was given a full ride scholarship to go on at both Yale and Brown, probably the two strongest American History programs in the world. It was a career escalator—although one I changed my mind about pursuing.
I did not treat college like a country club. I treated it like a candy store of interesting books to read. I wanted my money’s worth. I was paying dearly to be there as an undergraduate, and I wanted to read a book a day for four years.
Peter Sage
Not all conservative white people are motivated by a “great replacement theory.“ I am certainly not.
My opposition to affirmative action comes out of a commitment to a color-blind evaluation of excellence and competence. I care about the quality of the code you write, and not at all about what color you are or what religion you follow (as long as it’s not some dangerous, hateful kind like jihadism).
Post a Comment