This following the announcement Obama's eldest daughter was accepted at Harvard. The children fortunate enough to be born to privilege are the ones who stock America's premier universities . . . . .
11
College nowadays is a joke.I felt like a customer instead of a student when I was at University of Colorado. Just give them the money and you get your piece of paper. Now, I'm $186000 in debt (I went to MIT as well) and make less than my girlfriend, who is a master electrician.
College has become a way to produce cheap replaceable workers who are forced to constantly work in order to keep paying the debt. My debt payment just went up 2000% for no reason, today I get to waste all afternoon trying to prove to to the banks that I'm just as poor as I was last week.
College has become a way to produce cheap replaceable workers who are forced to constantly work in order to keep paying the debt. My debt payment just went up 2000% for no reason, today I get to waste all afternoon trying to prove to to the banks that I'm just as poor as I was last week.
12
1) This article and the NYTimes in general continues to present a skewed vision of higher ed through which only about 25 elite institutions seem to exist. This is a tiny fraction of higher ed and does not have much to do with the real world.
2) My impression of the data and my own experience has been that low income students are more engaged and committed at institutions that are not drenched in bourgeois culture. Anecdotally, two friends of mine dropped out of Vassar not because of money or academics but because they resented the elitism of their peers: the type of elitism demonstrated again and again by the NYT's coverage of higher ed.
2) My impression of the data and my own experience has been that low income students are more engaged and committed at institutions that are not drenched in bourgeois culture. Anecdotally, two friends of mine dropped out of Vassar not because of money or academics but because they resented the elitism of their peers: the type of elitism demonstrated again and again by the NYT's coverage of higher ed.
24
Another reprehensible NYT article focusing on elite universities. When will the Times acknowledge that the vast majority of students attend state institutions? Instead of attending to a small, privileged slice, tackle the big picture: how to fund our state universities so they can be as excellent as the private ones. This is how you redress inequality--on a large scale.
30
Levelers? When so many 'elite' or even 'quasi-elite' colleges give great weight to such things as unpaid internships (Not only unaffordable for the poorer amongst us who need money for their own costs AND to contribute to their families, but often requiring social connections merely to get one), summers spent 'giving back to the community', especially one far from home (unpaid), private schooler and 'legacies' (Again, money, money, money), and of course athletes for the pro farm teams in football and basketball that so many of these schools have become. And then again, even those lucky students who get accepted and win scholarships end up needing to work at least one or two paid jobs to pay the rest of their bills ('Paid scholarships' don't often cover much, if anything, beyond) - and THAT places them at huge disadvantages in the jobs market, which typically looks for the 'right' social and extracurricular activities (Not much time for those if you've got to work), including 'Greek' life and, of course, more unpaid internships.
The only 'leveling' these schools are really doing is flattening the chances of those not already well-heeled and well-connected. So spare us the crocodile tears from the establishment, please.
The only 'leveling' these schools are really doing is flattening the chances of those not already well-heeled and well-connected. So spare us the crocodile tears from the establishment, please.
6
Silly column. If every elite college in the country admitted ONLY students from the bottom 30% income groups, it would have no effect whatsoever on inequality of wealth and income. If anything, things would get worse--there would be more competence at the top.
8
Another NY Times article on higher education that ignores the fact that the vast majority of students, especially minority and low-income students, attend large public universities. How about, rather than focusing so much energy on how to get a few of these students into elite colleges we, as a society, reverse the decades-long disinvestment in public higher education in this country?
And how about the NY Times write about that issue?
And how about the NY Times write about that issue?
37
How about we level up the support at the state schools? The public really ought to pay for the public good that is higher education.
18
"Colleges depend heavily on SAT and ACT scores. But these standardized tests are discriminatory — the richer you are, the better you’ll do, even without test-preparation services and professional tutoring, to which poor kids have no access."
The author has completely confused causation with correlation. Just b/c a test results in different outcomes doesn't make it discriminatory. Unless the author can demonstrate that the graders of the test somehow account for a student's socioeconomic status when taking the test and vary the results by that, all this is is a correlation.
It is odd that elsewhere in the NYT I have read about how gifted programs in elementary schools are lauded for using standardized tests to remove discrimination (even though the tests aren't used in a uniform manner).
The author has completely confused causation with correlation. Just b/c a test results in different outcomes doesn't make it discriminatory. Unless the author can demonstrate that the graders of the test somehow account for a student's socioeconomic status when taking the test and vary the results by that, all this is is a correlation.
It is odd that elsewhere in the NYT I have read about how gifted programs in elementary schools are lauded for using standardized tests to remove discrimination (even though the tests aren't used in a uniform manner).
20
First, one needs the intelligence to gain something from a college education. If that is not there, the 'level' will go down for all.
11
I would add this advice, to any college admissions office or future employers of college grads: take a much closer look at the student who worked at burger king or pounded nails or whatever, than the kid who counted turtles in costa rica as a summer "intern," or whose HS senior spring trip to the Appalachians was glorified as "service," rather than just hangin' with your friends for an expensive boondoggle. I would always go for the kids who know what it is to work, manage money, contribute to their family or their own support-- than one of the spoiled kids who make it through college without any meaningful employment. Much better ROI awaits you.
10
Another patently false article based on another false premise. In fact, education without great parenting can never be a societal leveler. Most of what we learn in life (must) come from engaged, caring parents, extended family, ones culture, heritage. Sadly, in mongrelized genetically devolved countries, i.e., America, intellectual resources are few..
9
Graduating isn't everything. Today we're looking at >75% of kids from "elite" schools going into the finance sector. This is bad for the country. Just 25 years ago the best went into technology fields and dis something useful. What I'd like to see is the best and brightest with a chance to do something useful with their time. It is hard for a kid with the smarts but without the preparation to handle circuits 101, or linear algebra at 8:00 AM when living away from home for the first time. From what I see, we graduate a very diverse group of society and culture majors but a less diverse group of EECS majors. And I disagree with the subtext that there is something wrong with Ohio State or Wisconsin. CCNY has been turning immigrants into members of the middle class for ~200 years. Just look at what great state U's do for the taxpayers.
16
IF the aim is to improve social mobility how about these much better approaches:
1) Fund K-12 education centrally, paying through property taxes entrenches the elite in expensive neighbourhoods.
2) Teach people to appreciate ALL forms of learning AND skill - there is huge value in someone who learns to work with their hands, just as there is someone who learns to work with their mind - we need both and we need both to constantly adapt and improve to do whatever is next.
3) Accept that College is not and never will be a great leveler because it comes 18 years too late for that.
If you really want to level the playing field make college cheaper:
Tax exemption applies only to teaching, not sport, not advertising, not campus gloss and luxury.
Colleges must cosign loans; they make the payment above say 10% of graduates income.
1) Fund K-12 education centrally, paying through property taxes entrenches the elite in expensive neighbourhoods.
2) Teach people to appreciate ALL forms of learning AND skill - there is huge value in someone who learns to work with their hands, just as there is someone who learns to work with their mind - we need both and we need both to constantly adapt and improve to do whatever is next.
3) Accept that College is not and never will be a great leveler because it comes 18 years too late for that.
If you really want to level the playing field make college cheaper:
Tax exemption applies only to teaching, not sport, not advertising, not campus gloss and luxury.
Colleges must cosign loans; they make the payment above say 10% of graduates income.
8
A university education, from its beginning in the twelfth century, was never meant to achieve "a leveling" of society. This is a new idea that subverts the traditional goals of excellence and deep knowledge . The SAT and similar tests are only discriminatory for those who cannot do well. Blaming "priviledge" or "wealth" as the reason some do well and others do not is a canard to explain away the lower achievement levels of certain groups rather than the fact that may not have the intelligence or discipline that is needed. The fact that some parents focus their time and energy in their children's learning is not a matter of "priviledge" but of priority. And it certainly should not be denounced as "institutional racism."
19
The “golden age” of college education as a great leveling mechanism was between 1945-1980. The post-WWII world of the GI Bill, the Cold War (remember when people used to believe in science?), low interest student loans, etc., was one in which college attendance burgeoned, particularly among groups of people who could never even aspire to higher education. At some point the “ruling classes” (read: rich and entitled WASPS) became worried that they were losing control and so began trying to eliminate opportunities in higher education across the board – and it has worked.
3
This seems clearly written by someone who went to an elite college. This article is about individual access equity, rather than larger social group uplift. Even if you tripled the amount of poor kids in elite colleges, what impact would that have on poor communities? Asserting this as a solution to what ails poor communities in the US seems naive at best.
17
One of the key features of these private elites is their small size... Vassar, Amherst, and Pomona are all 1500-3000 kids. Everything about navigating college gets easier in a smaller school. More attention, a greater sense of community, a residential campus, less red tape, ease of switching majors, ease of talking to a professor, or getting an extension on a paper, or joining a "full" class.... These factors improve four-year graduation rates.
9
Providing social mobility is not the point of elite college admissions. The ivy leagues favor the rich and famous, puts up with the middle class (if they are willing to mortgage the family home to help pay the bloated school bills). They only self-righteously accepts "diversity" when it comes in the form of well groomed, articulate suburbanites. Our country is quickly becoming a class based society and the liberal media is obsessed with race to the detriment of true fiscal democracy.
10
A very good thing that colleges could do, is show, in real terms, how much can you actually expect to make from the career path chosen, and the success rate for individuals in that field.
As in ‘Liberal Arts Major, median income in this field X, rate of employment in this field Y, cost of education $$$, years to pay off bill Z’
That way kids would not so readily sign up for careers, like Liberal Arts Major, where the training will cost a ton of money, and they can be expected to land a job flipping burgers at McD for under $15/hour.
Be realistic about it, let the kids know that that Private Liberal Arts college, will result in huge debt, and a tini miniscule chance to pay it back. Or to actually make money on that field.
It is a major failure to tell the kids to choose any career they like, without also telling them they will be on the hook for a mountain of debt with no way to pay it back, or way to make a living off from this debt.
As in ‘Liberal Arts Major, median income in this field X, rate of employment in this field Y, cost of education $$$, years to pay off bill Z’
That way kids would not so readily sign up for careers, like Liberal Arts Major, where the training will cost a ton of money, and they can be expected to land a job flipping burgers at McD for under $15/hour.
Be realistic about it, let the kids know that that Private Liberal Arts college, will result in huge debt, and a tini miniscule chance to pay it back. Or to actually make money on that field.
It is a major failure to tell the kids to choose any career they like, without also telling them they will be on the hook for a mountain of debt with no way to pay it back, or way to make a living off from this debt.
3
Here in New Mexico, one of the poorest states in the nation, with a population of less than 3 million, about half of whom are from ethnic minorities, we have a whopping six state universities in order to placate local politicians in each area of the state, but no one is even trying to level the playing field.
Instead, most universities are down-sizing as fast as they can under our "get tough with criminals" governor Susana Martinez, or privatizing some of their functions. E.g., at New Mexico State University we just opened a new PRIVATE school of osteopathy.
The only high school in New Mexico ranked in the top 1,000 for academics is Los Alamos High, in the tiny county of Los Alamos, which was founded by the nuclear scientists who built the first A-bomb.
"Talented students should go to the best college they can"
Most New Mexico students have one choice: To go to the community college, and then perhaps, the state university, closest to their home. And under Republican governors, in one of the nation's biggest gas and oil-producing state, things can only be expected to get worse and worse.
Instead, most universities are down-sizing as fast as they can under our "get tough with criminals" governor Susana Martinez, or privatizing some of their functions. E.g., at New Mexico State University we just opened a new PRIVATE school of osteopathy.
The only high school in New Mexico ranked in the top 1,000 for academics is Los Alamos High, in the tiny county of Los Alamos, which was founded by the nuclear scientists who built the first A-bomb.
"Talented students should go to the best college they can"
Most New Mexico students have one choice: To go to the community college, and then perhaps, the state university, closest to their home. And under Republican governors, in one of the nation's biggest gas and oil-producing state, things can only be expected to get worse and worse.
7
In Europe, college is not for everyone. People are tracked early on in their school career - some to vocational school, others to college, etc... College is inexpensive because it is subsidized but, and this is important, the seats are limited. College should mean something and be for those who are intellectually engaged. I would agree that it is a waste to have a low-income gifted child not attend college but it is even more a waste to have a child attend college who lacks the intellectual chops to do the work required to make a college degree meaningful. Our country is failing in both respects.
39
The great "levelers" of society really and unquestionably need to be grade and high school. These are universal and uplift ALL students regardless of class, race, religion, etc. Resources targeted here would have a much greater social impact than disproportionate resources on a very select few.
The author is a fool for not seeing this. A total fool.
The author is a fool for not seeing this. A total fool.
17
My partner has taught in inner city high schools in New York and in one of the 'best' private prep schools in the country. The advantages the wealthy get is beyond your imagination. The system couldn't be less fair to the poor. They dodge insults and fights in the halls, and sit in classes of 40 kids, many disruptive. The teachers have emergency call buttons to security in their classrooms, and teach 5 classes a day (that's 200 total).
At the prep school classes are capped at 20, teachers offer free tutoring, the teaching load is 3 or 4 per day.
More importantly, teachers in public schools weed out their classes, so slowly become less sympathetic to the endless stories of why a student was late or absent, even if half of them are legit. On the other hand, the rich kids drive to school in their own BMW.
The poor public school kids can get a C after working hard and learning a lot, if they just aren't quite as good at testing, or didn't have time to study. No kid is allowed to get a C in the prep school: the top half get an A, and the other half get a gentleman's B. That's considered fair as they had to test to get into the school, so everyone's above average.
The final difference? Class rank. Colleges want that. So the public schools deliver it, even if it hurts some students with potential. The prep schools refuse... they all just get a great letter of recommendation. The A's go to the Ivies, and Stanford, Bs go to Swarthmore, W&L, NW, Wash U, Tulane.
At the prep school classes are capped at 20, teachers offer free tutoring, the teaching load is 3 or 4 per day.
More importantly, teachers in public schools weed out their classes, so slowly become less sympathetic to the endless stories of why a student was late or absent, even if half of them are legit. On the other hand, the rich kids drive to school in their own BMW.
The poor public school kids can get a C after working hard and learning a lot, if they just aren't quite as good at testing, or didn't have time to study. No kid is allowed to get a C in the prep school: the top half get an A, and the other half get a gentleman's B. That's considered fair as they had to test to get into the school, so everyone's above average.
The final difference? Class rank. Colleges want that. So the public schools deliver it, even if it hurts some students with potential. The prep schools refuse... they all just get a great letter of recommendation. The A's go to the Ivies, and Stanford, Bs go to Swarthmore, W&L, NW, Wash U, Tulane.
4
First as always correlation does not indicate causality. Next why would anybody want to go to Vasser? Now MIT I could understand but Vasser is basically a liberal arts college for wealthy females. Worthless.
2
The picture of a white helping a poor black perpetuates many other myths. How about pictures of blacks helping needy whites, and blacks helping blacks. better to do good near home than travel a thousand miles to burn a candle
7
If these schools are so desperate to help 1st generation college goers and low-income students why do they have such strict quotas for Asians? Same reason they kept out the Jews in the 20s? Why are only some minorities "desirable"? How come its OK for "some" of these desirable students to have lower academic stats? If we really want the system to be a meritocracy, there's an easy way to do it. By the way, all of the most competitive colleges recruit poor, minority students like crazy and have endowments to pay for them. Also, they offer unrestricted early options so students cans hop for the best offer. And being able to handle the academics are only part of this problem. Imagine being a poor, minority student trying to join an eating club at Princeton. No thank you.
6
Coming from a poor white family in the 70's where we had the academics but not the funds, the Ivies helped alot. The stipend money they were giving at the
time on top of tuition and fees, made it actually feasible with no real economic
disparity. Stipends would be a great leveler at many smaller schools too for the
group that worries getting home in a family emergency would be financially impossible as their monies are so tight. More stipends please!
time on top of tuition and fees, made it actually feasible with no real economic
disparity. Stipends would be a great leveler at many smaller schools too for the
group that worries getting home in a family emergency would be financially impossible as their monies are so tight. More stipends please!
1
"Level" all you want, once a student is out of the gate businesses aren't going to pick up the slack. I've taught at an Ivy, and it's no secret that minority students both gravitate towards majors and classes with an easier threshold of passing, and once there are also given an extraordinary amount of extra support from the professor, TAs, and counseling to get the same grade that an otherwise well prepared student would get.
And there's no way that the private sector can match this level of support once the student graduates and becomes their charge, nor should they since their charter doesn't involve "leveling" but winning and growing. And so what's the result? Added scrutiny when hiring, and a trend among firms who pay well to using standardized testing during the evaluation process to weed out the hires who are going to need extraordinary support in order to produce A level work.
I saw some great ideas down thread, like putting effort into steering these students towards tough, standards based majors, and using high school and middle school to level.
Going out of our way to level at the collegiate level denies slots to capable students, lowers standards, and teaches those that hire that we can't be trusted to turn out quality students due to the way we put work into helping some get A's who wouldn't otherwise make the grade.
When your political preferences disagree with the standards, the right answer isn't to shelve the standard.
And there's no way that the private sector can match this level of support once the student graduates and becomes their charge, nor should they since their charter doesn't involve "leveling" but winning and growing. And so what's the result? Added scrutiny when hiring, and a trend among firms who pay well to using standardized testing during the evaluation process to weed out the hires who are going to need extraordinary support in order to produce A level work.
I saw some great ideas down thread, like putting effort into steering these students towards tough, standards based majors, and using high school and middle school to level.
Going out of our way to level at the collegiate level denies slots to capable students, lowers standards, and teaches those that hire that we can't be trusted to turn out quality students due to the way we put work into helping some get A's who wouldn't otherwise make the grade.
When your political preferences disagree with the standards, the right answer isn't to shelve the standard.
8
Levelling society is not a realistic goal. The best we can achieve is a fairer hierarchy with some upward paths for people who start at the bottom.
We also have to accept that society has changed. When there is no more manufacturing, there will be no more need for mechanical and electrical engineers. When careers are fully open to women, there will be no more need for English degrees to add decoration to potential wives.
The American college system is like Amtrak. It runs on tracks conceived in a different era for a different purpose. It's nice that some of the train drivers want to strike out boldly in new directions, and nice that some of them want to pick up more passengers, but it's Penn Station at the end of the line, and that's the problem the rest of us have to solve first.
We also have to accept that society has changed. When there is no more manufacturing, there will be no more need for mechanical and electrical engineers. When careers are fully open to women, there will be no more need for English degrees to add decoration to potential wives.
The American college system is like Amtrak. It runs on tracks conceived in a different era for a different purpose. It's nice that some of the train drivers want to strike out boldly in new directions, and nice that some of them want to pick up more passengers, but it's Penn Station at the end of the line, and that's the problem the rest of us have to solve first.
1
A tough and important problem. If, as several readers say, we don't *need* a college education, much less elite liberal arts, how explain the tax breaks both for the institutions and the students? Colleges in fact have always provided opportunities (not enough, but still) beyond what some of their students could have dreamed of -- what do you think the Dartmouth mascot Indian started out from? I have taught so many students from unpromising backgrounds, and university life has meant the world to them -- really literally. And maybe such students don't need the elite schools, but in my experience the "elite" students do need the less elite sitting with them in their classes. And youngsters have always had dreams. Sometimes a dream can't be fulfilled for a reason that just makes sense (we can't all make the grade at our dream profession, for example), but losing the dream because of obvious social inequity -- that's a blight that can hurt a person for life.
1
Education could, and should, be the equalizer for the chance, the opportunity, to feel part of society, not only about enhanced humanism but equal footing in getting a job. The poor are at a disadvantage because they cannot acquire the required educational skills prior to getting to college. Other than spreading the opportunities for excellence in primary level and high school, a remedial course, say, lasting 3 to 6 months, to cover the shortcomings, just prior to entering college, may be very helpful indeed.
2
I hate that white students who are Pell legible or even middle class are left out of the equation now. I was white and able to go to a Private university and thrive, graduate 5 th in my class . Go on to graduate school. I had a great career. Unfortunately at 41, I had a catestropic injury at work as a first responder. My ex husband turned out to be achmuck who married me for money, hasn't paid child support in 12 years. Since I can't work, the disability and Social security income qualifies my child for Pell. Major medical bills goes through even a hefty 401 k in 13 years. ( my ex husband looted my daughters college fund).
My daughter has sting grades, but every single scholarship requires you to be a minority, black or Hispanic. Or a Native American with a tribal number. My daughter is Native American, but those who hid in the Georgia barns in 18OO and lied by claiming white have no number. Her great great grandfather even married a white spinster lady after her native mother died to carry out the ruse.
Then I have degrees, so my child can't get any first in family scholarships. What does the degree mater when I am 100% disabled. Or like many parents in their 50's and 60's outsourced or in sourced. Their has to be a better way.
Just if you qualify for a Pell grant you qualify. Let's do away with other preferences. As it says the blacks and Hispanics getting into Harvard are the Malia Obama's or my Columbia friend son, whose father is a top executive with Coke .
My daughter has sting grades, but every single scholarship requires you to be a minority, black or Hispanic. Or a Native American with a tribal number. My daughter is Native American, but those who hid in the Georgia barns in 18OO and lied by claiming white have no number. Her great great grandfather even married a white spinster lady after her native mother died to carry out the ruse.
Then I have degrees, so my child can't get any first in family scholarships. What does the degree mater when I am 100% disabled. Or like many parents in their 50's and 60's outsourced or in sourced. Their has to be a better way.
Just if you qualify for a Pell grant you qualify. Let's do away with other preferences. As it says the blacks and Hispanics getting into Harvard are the Malia Obama's or my Columbia friend son, whose father is a top executive with Coke .
7
Students from poor, near poor and the first generation to attend college have been neglected for decades...basically forever. If you make it from one of those groups, it is a tribute to you, the student, and perhaps some support from parents and the community.
Here's one suggestion: have a four to six month "boot camp" for anyone from these groups going on to college. Perhaps they could be pulled out early from high school (like March of the senior year) and given intense instruction on what to expect in college, how to present papers and other work to professors in a manner that would be acceptable and how, most importantly, to manage the financial challenges.
Meanwhile, colleges should get out of the business of trying to determine, and then anoint, which students are going to be leaders in their generation. In most fields, you can't tell by age 17. They should get out of the "good, better, best" business. Students should take tests and submit to an interview to determine if they are qualified. Then, a large portion of the places in colleges should be decided by lottery.
If we want a society where everyone has a chance, we have to stop thinking that only those who go to the best known, brand name schools are "the best and the brightest". If more of the better students were spread around, then other top schools would become better because of those students attending. "Elite education" is to some degree a worn out concept borrowed from England.
Doug Terry
Here's one suggestion: have a four to six month "boot camp" for anyone from these groups going on to college. Perhaps they could be pulled out early from high school (like March of the senior year) and given intense instruction on what to expect in college, how to present papers and other work to professors in a manner that would be acceptable and how, most importantly, to manage the financial challenges.
Meanwhile, colleges should get out of the business of trying to determine, and then anoint, which students are going to be leaders in their generation. In most fields, you can't tell by age 17. They should get out of the "good, better, best" business. Students should take tests and submit to an interview to determine if they are qualified. Then, a large portion of the places in colleges should be decided by lottery.
If we want a society where everyone has a chance, we have to stop thinking that only those who go to the best known, brand name schools are "the best and the brightest". If more of the better students were spread around, then other top schools would become better because of those students attending. "Elite education" is to some degree a worn out concept borrowed from England.
Doug Terry
1
Setting aside humanistic and scientific ideals that are supposed to be imparted to students, universities are devoted not to leveling but ranking students and placing them in a hierarchy of discipline, responsibility. and intelligence. Some students can't handle the work and drop out. Some take 5 years or more to graduate. Some receive 4.0 or 3.9. GPA's along with honors and even finish a semester early. Professional schools and employers are interested in knowing what their potential grad students and employees can do and what they have done. Leveling? That's not what makes for a successful society.
3
I would not assume that the high graduation rates of elite schools is indicative of high-quality, but rather a tendency of these schools to push all students forward. That said, some public-colleges have much better standards, and they do fail students and have much lower graduation rates. Sadly, all too many students are being misled into the belief that getting a degree means something, and getting an elite degree means even more. We need to put more emphasis on getting a quality education, and less emphasis on pass rates. We need to stop the flow of education money into these private schools, and start to support quality education in the public sector.
1
Higher education must be treated like voter efficacy. If voters lose faith in their vote, or their ability to change or influence the system through peaceful means, they will choose other means. If Colleges remain outside the means of the students from the working class, and I will define that as $60,000 or less a year, then education itself is devalued across the broader society. Intelligent, striving working class students, whatever race or ethnicity, must see a way forward in our society, and that means a chance at the brass ring afforded by attending elite Colleges, or they will find other, less pleasant ways, to level the field. It's not about conscience it is about long term stability of the system and the elite have a vested interest in the survival of a system that benefits them the most.
1
As a recent graduate from an Ivy League institute, the biggest issue I saw in terms of admissions was legacy. There were way too many students who, had their parents not went to the school or had not donated millions of dollars, would have had no shot of admittance. I think a great solution would be that the federal government cut off all federal research funding to schools who admit any students based off of legacy. Yes, most elite schools are private, but tax dollars do not have to be spent to further benefit the children of extreme privilege. Eliminating admissions based off of legacy or donations would open thousands of spots nationally at elite schools for students to be admitted on merit alone
2
"Higher education, once seen as the nation’s great leveler, has become a guardian of class division... in America."
The most insidious way this has happened is by using greed to increase the price of an education to the point that most students are saddled with a lifetimes debt which cannot be discharged by bankruptcy on graduation. That fact alone should raise alarm bells. What possible purpose could there be to make such debt free from the same legal processes all others abide by?
That debt which can only be paid off makes them less likely to use that education to do independent things such as upset the apple cart or change the system to make it more fair because they have to earn money to pay that debt down. The thing is most people who do things that improve society do not also make a lot of money. Usually they live a subsistence lifestyle for many years before starting to earn regular wages that let them have more. If you have to pay down a $50, $60, $70 $100K debt they cannot afford to take several years to be less financially productive while learning how to accomplish the goal they have. Another aspect is how Doctors all seem to be co opted by the system these days. Used to be doctors were independent types who made their own decisions and did not allow pharmacy companies etc dictate to them how to treat people. Now for fear of losing their income they stay in line or the insurance companies will start to forget to pay on time or contest billings or???
The most insidious way this has happened is by using greed to increase the price of an education to the point that most students are saddled with a lifetimes debt which cannot be discharged by bankruptcy on graduation. That fact alone should raise alarm bells. What possible purpose could there be to make such debt free from the same legal processes all others abide by?
That debt which can only be paid off makes them less likely to use that education to do independent things such as upset the apple cart or change the system to make it more fair because they have to earn money to pay that debt down. The thing is most people who do things that improve society do not also make a lot of money. Usually they live a subsistence lifestyle for many years before starting to earn regular wages that let them have more. If you have to pay down a $50, $60, $70 $100K debt they cannot afford to take several years to be less financially productive while learning how to accomplish the goal they have. Another aspect is how Doctors all seem to be co opted by the system these days. Used to be doctors were independent types who made their own decisions and did not allow pharmacy companies etc dictate to them how to treat people. Now for fear of losing their income they stay in line or the insurance companies will start to forget to pay on time or contest billings or???
The battle to get into so called elite schools is all about prestige, not about learning. If the brightest students in America would abandon these schools and rush to what are now considered to be great, secondary level colleges, those schools would then become the top. It is the students, not the faculty, who make for great colleges. In one recent yr. according to Boston.com, 53% of the undergrad courses at Harvard were taught by part time adjuncts, not all that different from your local community college or a minor state college.
College admissions should be handled by lottery, at least in terms of 1/3 to 1/2 of the students. Set a minimum level for qualification and then draw names. True, there would be some disasters, but there are now anyway.
End the "affirmative action program for rich white kids" known as legacy admissions. This is blatant discrimination against those who would otherwise be qualified to attend if a legacy student were not taking their place. People were up in arms about preferences for blacks, why not the same level of protest?
The whole system is a farce, but it is one that most of America's bright young people feel they must submit themselves to in order to get a prestige name on their starting resumes. The top colleges have their pick of the brightest, hardest working students and, presto!, they graduate the same.
We don't need a heavy, class based ranking system for people in a democratic society. That's what we have now.
Doug Terry
College admissions should be handled by lottery, at least in terms of 1/3 to 1/2 of the students. Set a minimum level for qualification and then draw names. True, there would be some disasters, but there are now anyway.
End the "affirmative action program for rich white kids" known as legacy admissions. This is blatant discrimination against those who would otherwise be qualified to attend if a legacy student were not taking their place. People were up in arms about preferences for blacks, why not the same level of protest?
The whole system is a farce, but it is one that most of America's bright young people feel they must submit themselves to in order to get a prestige name on their starting resumes. The top colleges have their pick of the brightest, hardest working students and, presto!, they graduate the same.
We don't need a heavy, class based ranking system for people in a democratic society. That's what we have now.
Doug Terry
2
This article is very idealistic, and I applaud the goal of making admission to college accessible to all.
However, the author has missed the big picture. Admission to a good college is the same as admission to the middle and upper middle class, and middle to upper middle class parents know what would happen if we really empower less advantaged citizens to have an equal chance of getting into those colleges. There will always be a limited number of slots, and this would mean more competition for their children. Therefore, such parents will make politically correct statements, but their first priority, like any parent, will be what is in the best interest of their children.
Many of us think things are still the same as after WWII when the nation had a shortage of college educated citizens, and there was a concerted effort to upgrade the level of education of all our citizens. There was then plenty of room at the top, and the elite supported creating more opportunities for returning soldiers to go to college.
But things have changed. Middle and upper middle class parents are desperately concerned that their children not fall back into the lower class, where wages have stagnated for decades, and life is much more difficult. Everyone does not need a college degree, because not all jobs require one, and creating more public colleges is way too expensive.
This is the classic economic problem of a limited resource being competed over. This is the problem we must recognize.
However, the author has missed the big picture. Admission to a good college is the same as admission to the middle and upper middle class, and middle to upper middle class parents know what would happen if we really empower less advantaged citizens to have an equal chance of getting into those colleges. There will always be a limited number of slots, and this would mean more competition for their children. Therefore, such parents will make politically correct statements, but their first priority, like any parent, will be what is in the best interest of their children.
Many of us think things are still the same as after WWII when the nation had a shortage of college educated citizens, and there was a concerted effort to upgrade the level of education of all our citizens. There was then plenty of room at the top, and the elite supported creating more opportunities for returning soldiers to go to college.
But things have changed. Middle and upper middle class parents are desperately concerned that their children not fall back into the lower class, where wages have stagnated for decades, and life is much more difficult. Everyone does not need a college degree, because not all jobs require one, and creating more public colleges is way too expensive.
This is the classic economic problem of a limited resource being competed over. This is the problem we must recognize.
1
This is an interesting piece, but the larger problem in leveling society is not all the gifted, but poor students being left behind. It is the majority that are poor, but not gifted we need to worry about more. We need to be concerned that there are very few jobs in the economy that pay a decent living wage that do not require a college degree. Not everyone can or should go to college. This forces people into poorly run private colleges, offering degrees that are not worth the paper they are written on, to take on 5-6 figure dept trying to get ahead.
And even in the best case scenario, we also have to address the bias that perpetuates elitism. The unpaid internships to get into the top companies, or the jobs given to the children of friends or business associates, or because they are from similar backgrounds. The wealthy go to great lengths to keep themselves segregated. My stepson attends a prestigious private high school in NYC on scholarship. This is a kid who has gone to public school with mostly whites and Asian students. 6 months in his new school, and he is experiencing a level of blatant racism (we are black) that he has never been exposed to. Like students using racial slurs with no fear of punishment. And faculty being afraid to make an issue of it because the parents who pay $50K a year and make huge donations to the school would have a fit.
And even in the best case scenario, we also have to address the bias that perpetuates elitism. The unpaid internships to get into the top companies, or the jobs given to the children of friends or business associates, or because they are from similar backgrounds. The wealthy go to great lengths to keep themselves segregated. My stepson attends a prestigious private high school in NYC on scholarship. This is a kid who has gone to public school with mostly whites and Asian students. 6 months in his new school, and he is experiencing a level of blatant racism (we are black) that he has never been exposed to. Like students using racial slurs with no fear of punishment. And faculty being afraid to make an issue of it because the parents who pay $50K a year and make huge donations to the school would have a fit.
4
To paraphrase Yoda: "The delusion is high in this one".
"Higher education, once seen as the nation’s great leveler, has become a guardian of class division and privilege in America. "
The reality is that the higher education is becoming increasingly accessible to anyone with motivation irrespective of social and economic status, thanks to the amazing trove of free resources available online, including free courses offered by those very universities who are the subject of these author's rants. The cost is about $60 a month in the form of internet access.
What's holding back the economically disadvantaged students is a K-12 public education system that graduates this group of students despite the fact that a large fraction of the latter are utterly unprepared for college. We know who are the culprits behind the education system whose graduates score the highest in self-esteem and self-confidence, but some of the lowest in the industrial world in functional literacy. But that's another story.
In any case, it would be interesting to learn how these students from poor families do academically in these elite colleges, and how they fare a decade or two after graduation.
"Higher education, once seen as the nation’s great leveler, has become a guardian of class division and privilege in America. "
The reality is that the higher education is becoming increasingly accessible to anyone with motivation irrespective of social and economic status, thanks to the amazing trove of free resources available online, including free courses offered by those very universities who are the subject of these author's rants. The cost is about $60 a month in the form of internet access.
What's holding back the economically disadvantaged students is a K-12 public education system that graduates this group of students despite the fact that a large fraction of the latter are utterly unprepared for college. We know who are the culprits behind the education system whose graduates score the highest in self-esteem and self-confidence, but some of the lowest in the industrial world in functional literacy. But that's another story.
In any case, it would be interesting to learn how these students from poor families do academically in these elite colleges, and how they fare a decade or two after graduation.
2
The premise that higher education was "once seen as the nation’s great leveler" is not true - military service with GI Bill benefits was a leveler for a very brief period from the second World War to the mid-50s and then again to a far lesser extent for Vietnam era veterans in the late-60s/early-70s. The faculty and student-life staff feel that higher education should be a great leveler but that doesn't make it so. Those same people charge less to poorer students, make accommodations at admissions for poorer students, and preach a strongly egalitarian political perspective at their lecterns - but that doesn't mean the appropriate role for higher education is as a great leveler. Higher education talks about diversity but doesn't walk the walk - try being a Republican and applying for a faculty job - they don't want diverse points of view to enrich discussions - they want to feel righteous in their very odd academic culture of "progressive politics" mixed with envy of the professional schools - "I don't care about money, I'll go into scholarship in the liberal arts and spend my life envying the business school faculty." Education is a public good and also a private good and as a public good we should demand that it emphasize ability/"merit" (sure, impossible to define precisely, but it isn't "first generation" status), not background, wealth, or ethnic/racial diversity, and as a private good we should recognize that some will have greater access and consequent better results.
5
Awww, poor conservatives. You ran the country for the last 30 years, but that's not good enough for you, is it? You want all the meanie English professors to like you, too, even though you loathe them for specializing in "useless" fields (ie., fields that don't make money for corporations). Boo hoo.
1
Oh dear, here we go again. It's the "college for everyone" delusion.
Sure you can get creative with money and get poor kids with bright minds through college and on to good careers. That's going to help about 15% of them, the same way about 15% of the population in general is able to get something out of a college education other than a hangover and a large debt. Kvetching about rich frat-rats who flunk their way to rehab is of no consequence in this larger view.
Trouble is: what do you do for the other 85%? That's the question that needs answering, and college is not part of that answer and never can be.
Sure you can get creative with money and get poor kids with bright minds through college and on to good careers. That's going to help about 15% of them, the same way about 15% of the population in general is able to get something out of a college education other than a hangover and a large debt. Kvetching about rich frat-rats who flunk their way to rehab is of no consequence in this larger view.
Trouble is: what do you do for the other 85%? That's the question that needs answering, and college is not part of that answer and never can be.
11
The focus on "elite universities," that graduate perhaps 1% of college undergraduates, misses the point. It's like saying American youth are overweight and out of shape and the measure of success is how many can make the US Olympics team.
We need to focus on the masses of poor, lower and middle-income kids that find themselves in poor to mediocre public schools across the nation. For this group, attending and graduating from a decent college, public or private, with modest debt is the best chance for entry into a productive middle-class life.
The measure of success should be what percentage of a high school's graduating class attend and graduate from college with a 4-year degree. By this yardstick, many school districts across the nation are massively failing to meet their mission. They should loss their monopoly system of failing our youth and their communities whether through management changes, vouchers, charter schools or forced mergers with neighboring successful schools. Particular marginal school systems should be taken over by the state with additional funding when necessary.
Publishing their dismal success rates would be an accomplishment that would allow some parents to vote with their feet.
Hold the public school systems accountable first and the problems associated with poorly education children ill-prepared to do succeed will correct themselves. The issue is not getting these kids into Harvard. The issue is getting them into Slippery Rock.
We need to focus on the masses of poor, lower and middle-income kids that find themselves in poor to mediocre public schools across the nation. For this group, attending and graduating from a decent college, public or private, with modest debt is the best chance for entry into a productive middle-class life.
The measure of success should be what percentage of a high school's graduating class attend and graduate from college with a 4-year degree. By this yardstick, many school districts across the nation are massively failing to meet their mission. They should loss their monopoly system of failing our youth and their communities whether through management changes, vouchers, charter schools or forced mergers with neighboring successful schools. Particular marginal school systems should be taken over by the state with additional funding when necessary.
Publishing their dismal success rates would be an accomplishment that would allow some parents to vote with their feet.
Hold the public school systems accountable first and the problems associated with poorly education children ill-prepared to do succeed will correct themselves. The issue is not getting these kids into Harvard. The issue is getting them into Slippery Rock.
3
How about we also hold parents and students themselves accountable? That starts from day one of life. That continues by having just two children per family. That goes on by parents reading, taking kids on outings, exercising, serving good food. It cannot ALL be on our nations underfunded public schools.
5
It's all well and good to provide a clearer path for high achieving poor and minority students, but that's not the core problem with "leveling" today's society. Success at an elite university requires an elite mind, something that SAT's and GPA's are designed to ferret out in the applicants. The inequalities in today's economy accrue precisely between those with elite minds and the rest of the population. Automation, miniaturization, and globalization have rewarded the brightest members of society and penalized the rest. Things will only get worse moving forward as quantum computing comes online and data mining and pseudo artificial intelligence like IBM's Watson technology render stock market traders, radiologists, medical professionals and a large swath of engineers and highly paid professionals obsolete. The present economic plateau that we are calling a recovery only represents a pause in Moore's law as we move away from silicon and classical computing models. Perhaps it's time to rethink the whole work/pay/wealth model knit into modern capitalism.
3
College is the great equalizer. By shackling students with a house worth's of debt, we've ensured that the middle class is now, too, largely composed of wage slaves.
8
Once again, the NYT argues for preferences in reverse to value. This is, eventually, suicidal.
Lets drop all these reverse preferences! Everybody pays the same.
What I really dislike is the result that some students are left with large debt that, if everybody paid the same by leveling out the tuition, would
graduate with no debt.
I feel hat the fairest way to offer discounts is through old fashioned
scholarships: give discounts to proven success. Standardized tests are not perfect, but they are very good at predicting success in college and grad schools. Standardized tests could even be designed for performing
artists (e.g. violinists, quarterbacks) leaving only creative artists with purely subjective criteria.
I find the arguments that rich folk gain unfair advantage though test prep
to be unconvincing.
What is the killer argument against this opinion piece is mentioned by previous commenters: Some guy is a poor immigrant. His kid manages to somehow get though a good college (but not Harvard) with aid and scrapes his way though law or medical or business school and makes it to the top 5%. Then HE is penalized for his hard won success when his truly brilliant daughter has to pay full tuition at Harvard.
This is simply morally wrong. In the long run its bad for our country.
There will eventually be a serious backlash to the unfair preferences that the NYT espouses.
Lets drop all these reverse preferences! Everybody pays the same.
What I really dislike is the result that some students are left with large debt that, if everybody paid the same by leveling out the tuition, would
graduate with no debt.
I feel hat the fairest way to offer discounts is through old fashioned
scholarships: give discounts to proven success. Standardized tests are not perfect, but they are very good at predicting success in college and grad schools. Standardized tests could even be designed for performing
artists (e.g. violinists, quarterbacks) leaving only creative artists with purely subjective criteria.
I find the arguments that rich folk gain unfair advantage though test prep
to be unconvincing.
What is the killer argument against this opinion piece is mentioned by previous commenters: Some guy is a poor immigrant. His kid manages to somehow get though a good college (but not Harvard) with aid and scrapes his way though law or medical or business school and makes it to the top 5%. Then HE is penalized for his hard won success when his truly brilliant daughter has to pay full tuition at Harvard.
This is simply morally wrong. In the long run its bad for our country.
There will eventually be a serious backlash to the unfair preferences that the NYT espouses.
9
Colleges will be the guardian of privilege so long as college presidents and their administration rake in huge salaries. This money should go to professors, TAs and researchers who create the prestige of universities.
As a poor college student in the 1970's I remember surviving on scholarships while rich kids made me feel as though I didn't belong there. I worked harder than they did and eventually beat them soundly academically. My point is that colleges are supposed to promote the meritocracy that is the American dream. Like other institutions, colleges have failed miserably.
As a poor college student in the 1970's I remember surviving on scholarships while rich kids made me feel as though I didn't belong there. I worked harder than they did and eventually beat them soundly academically. My point is that colleges are supposed to promote the meritocracy that is the American dream. Like other institutions, colleges have failed miserably.
13
The money should go to professors? Are you kidding?
There're basically four types of faculty: humanities, social sciences, and hard sciences plus professional schools. In the humanities "research" consists of reappraising art and artifacts, including literature and the like, to arrive at banal conclusions no one cares about. Let those folks teach more. In the social sciences the iron grip of the political canon has crushed intellectual thinking - you can publish anything you want that "proves" (a) a victim group really has it tough, (b) white, male, hetero Christian American males caused it, or (c) progressive issues lead to "better results" (for example, the Times recently made much of a finding that children of women who work have better life outcomes - "better life outcomes" included the observation that those children of working mothers own children are more likely to work - did you just say "Wow"? Let the sociology and victims-studies faculty teach more, too! The hard sciences are being bled dry cross-subsidizing "research loads" for nonproductive and uninteresting humanities and social pseudoscience faculty.
I don't mind if you don't pay college presidents as much as you do - but they are net generators of resources because they're basically chief development officers, so don't cut their pay too much - but I sure object to increasing faculty remuneration in this day of light teaching loads and vacuous politically-driven "research" I'd rather we spend it on football!
There're basically four types of faculty: humanities, social sciences, and hard sciences plus professional schools. In the humanities "research" consists of reappraising art and artifacts, including literature and the like, to arrive at banal conclusions no one cares about. Let those folks teach more. In the social sciences the iron grip of the political canon has crushed intellectual thinking - you can publish anything you want that "proves" (a) a victim group really has it tough, (b) white, male, hetero Christian American males caused it, or (c) progressive issues lead to "better results" (for example, the Times recently made much of a finding that children of women who work have better life outcomes - "better life outcomes" included the observation that those children of working mothers own children are more likely to work - did you just say "Wow"? Let the sociology and victims-studies faculty teach more, too! The hard sciences are being bled dry cross-subsidizing "research loads" for nonproductive and uninteresting humanities and social pseudoscience faculty.
I don't mind if you don't pay college presidents as much as you do - but they are net generators of resources because they're basically chief development officers, so don't cut their pay too much - but I sure object to increasing faculty remuneration in this day of light teaching loads and vacuous politically-driven "research" I'd rather we spend it on football!
1
The "most highly rated colleges" promote "diversity" by accepting African-Americans whose parents are doctors and lawyers, and by accepting students from China, Japan and Singapore who are required to pay full tuition. Their record of accepting talented but poor students is abysmal, and the True Merit report identifies many of the reasons why this is so.
That being said, the article's focus on the most selective schools seems misplaced. A tiny fraction of college students graduate from these schools, so we should be focusing our attention, instead, on the many public universities that can and do provide an excellent education to all students, rich and poor alike.
State governments, whether controlled by Republicans or Democrats, have been slashing their university budgets for a generation now, shifting the financial burden of attendance onto students. When qualified low-income students can't afford an education at their nearby State university, that's a tragedy.
That being said, the article's focus on the most selective schools seems misplaced. A tiny fraction of college students graduate from these schools, so we should be focusing our attention, instead, on the many public universities that can and do provide an excellent education to all students, rich and poor alike.
State governments, whether controlled by Republicans or Democrats, have been slashing their university budgets for a generation now, shifting the financial burden of attendance onto students. When qualified low-income students can't afford an education at their nearby State university, that's a tragedy.
16
Actually, if Ms. Oloyede, who attends a Science High School, is interested in science, SUNY Stony Brook would have been a much better choice than Vassar.
10
The authors slip in a good point about the tax subsidies elite college receive as non-profit organizations. These subsidies amount to another tax break for the wealthy.
Tax policy can and should be used to encourage these colleges to accept more low and middle income students. Of course, that would require electing legislators who don't consider tax cuts for the rich their primary economic goal.
Tax policy can and should be used to encourage these colleges to accept more low and middle income students. Of course, that would require electing legislators who don't consider tax cuts for the rich their primary economic goal.
1
I was pleased to see this op-ed acknowledge the problem with affirmative action - it benefits middle and upper income minorities, not the poor. That in fact is the issue in the Texas affirmative action case. The "Top 10%" rule used in U of Texas admissions lets in a good number of poor minorities, but the school administration wanted to use affirmative action to bring in more higher income minorities.
On the other hand, I don't see much changing. Elite schools with large endowments aggressively recruit talented, low income students. Yes, more could be done on the margins but that's about it. Non-elite private schools are struggling financially and cannot afford significant numbers of non-paying (i.e. full scholarship) students.
On the other hand, I don't see much changing. Elite schools with large endowments aggressively recruit talented, low income students. Yes, more could be done on the margins but that's about it. Non-elite private schools are struggling financially and cannot afford significant numbers of non-paying (i.e. full scholarship) students.
8
This article is completely out of touch with reality. College is not about education. It is a business enterprise where highly paid administrators get a chance to shine in social events while contributing nothing. Students are just pawns that make that possible. This is the reason why faculty continues to shrink in favor of part-timers and inexperienced young professors that are easily controlled and trained to be uncreative in the advancement of knowledge by curbing academic freedom and freedom of speech. Knowledge is power, therefore it must be curbed. It starts in the K-12 level where parents are in charge of schools and children are in charge of their parents.
4
Ms. Rosenberg you say, "Higher education, once seen as the nation’s great leveler, has become a guardian of class division and privilege in America." I'm sure the average American simply does not understand what an understatement this is. I've been researching lawsuits to take away tax-free status from organizations like the catholic church and BIG universities for the wealthiest and came across the article linked here. BIG universities such as Princeton and the University of Washington have become government-subsidized for-profit entities and causing vast inequities in educational opportunities. They MUST be held accountable to stop feathering their elite nests and get back to educating young people as was intended. Today's education climate in America is feeling too much like a pre-democracy only-for-the-wealthy system.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/01/princeton-tax-exempt-status-law...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/01/princeton-tax-exempt-status-law...
6
Higher education was always a bastion of privilege.
When the GI Bill flooded higher education with more of the middle, the higher education stratified itself to maintain bastions for wealth and privilege such as the Ivy League.
As Republicans have rolled back help to the middle class, higher education has gone back to what it always did before the GI Bill.
Wealth and privilege, passed on to the next generation by what money can buy them as preparation and placement for opportunity, then pass on the money too as a stake like Trump's.
It is an aristocracy of wealth and privilege, and we've had one since the Tidewater Aristocrats of our Revolutionary days.
Sometimes we break out of that, but we are pushed back by reaction, now from both parties, Hillary as much as the Republicans serving that. It is part of what made Bernie so "unreasonable" in their eyes. How could we provide for education like they do in the rest of the developed world? We can't afford that! They can, but we've got wars to pay for and taxes to cut at the same time.
When the GI Bill flooded higher education with more of the middle, the higher education stratified itself to maintain bastions for wealth and privilege such as the Ivy League.
As Republicans have rolled back help to the middle class, higher education has gone back to what it always did before the GI Bill.
Wealth and privilege, passed on to the next generation by what money can buy them as preparation and placement for opportunity, then pass on the money too as a stake like Trump's.
It is an aristocracy of wealth and privilege, and we've had one since the Tidewater Aristocrats of our Revolutionary days.
Sometimes we break out of that, but we are pushed back by reaction, now from both parties, Hillary as much as the Republicans serving that. It is part of what made Bernie so "unreasonable" in their eyes. How could we provide for education like they do in the rest of the developed world? We can't afford that! They can, but we've got wars to pay for and taxes to cut at the same time.
14
Higher education should always be a bastion of privilege - just not the privilege of wealth and power, but rather of intellectual achievement. Ms Rosenberg appropriately focuses on academic ability, but I fear there is some validity in the criticism of academic standards being lowered in the name of 'diversity'. This is every bit as bad as lowering standards for 'legacy' admissions or top athletes.
We have to admit that a true higher education system will be inherently elitist, in an academic sense.
We have to admit that a true higher education system will be inherently elitist, in an academic sense.
2
All this strikes me as so much blather because I disagree with the author's premise. Colleges were never meant to be 'great levelers of society.' That's why we created the system of K through 12 public education. Liberal Arts colleges are NOT meant for everyone and should NEVER be free (sorry Bernie). They exist to shape and hone the capabilities and competencies of those who have the drive and the smarts to get passing grades in the plan of study chosen.
And what about the trades? They are a good career path, too. Hard to outsource that plumber work to India.
And what about the trades? They are a good career path, too. Hard to outsource that plumber work to India.
92
Says Doug: "[Colleges] exist to shape and hone the capabilities and competencies of those who have the drive and the smarts to get passing grades in the plan of study chosen." That's how Bush Jr got into Yale? Drive and smarts?
Then Doug says, condescendingly about trades "they are a good career path too". I assume, according to Doug, not for the very smart or driven.
And there, ladies and gents, lays the problem, that elites in both parties will always value the most skilled machinist much lower than your average liberal arts student.
And we wonder why both parties have lost touch with normal people.
Then Doug says, condescendingly about trades "they are a good career path too". I assume, according to Doug, not for the very smart or driven.
And there, ladies and gents, lays the problem, that elites in both parties will always value the most skilled machinist much lower than your average liberal arts student.
And we wonder why both parties have lost touch with normal people.
3
I think what the writer of this op-ed mean, Doug, is that college was supposed to be a means by which people of intelligence and determination could better their circumstances in life, not be stuck in place and labeled inferior because they did not attend an "elite"college. Instead, they have become largely places where the kids of wealthy or just well off parents confirm their status. Students from poorer families, those who are the first generation to attend college and those who are minorities should have the opportunity to advance themselves if they have the dedication to do the work. Instead, they get shunted off to second or third rate colleges where the failure rate is high, in part because weak programs do not inspire the greatest interest in motivated students. We are a democracy seeking the democratic ideal; we are not supposed to be a rigid class based society like England, where, for hundreds of years, one's birth parents decided what level one could attain in life. Such class based societies tend to decay over time and become less and less dynamic. Even within England, there are attempts now to move away from the "class is destiny" model and become more of an open society like ours.
Doug Terry
Doug Terry
I found myself wondering just when it was that colleges were "levelers" -- ? Surely not before the end of WWII and the advent of the GI Bill; and even when access then became easier (for many but by no means all), the whole pitch was to go to college in order to get ahead, not to be egalitarian. The more recent (and lamentable) scramble for slots at high-prestige places is largely the fault of US News and similar rankings, and of overanxious parents and teenagers, although universities that pump up their application totals in order to produce ludicrously low admission rates are partly to blame as well. If there were ever a real "leveling" era it was a temporary historical anomaly, and the recent problems of access and of exacerbating inequalities (which I agree are serious worries) are more representative of long-term realities.
1
Again the middle class gets shafted. I also doubt that poor whites are what these schools want.
56
Ms Rosenberg, I think, does assume that poor students will largely be of colour. This diversity is purely cosmetic. I live in an upscale suburb which in recent years has been gentrified economically to the point where only doctors, lawyers, hedge fund managers, and other stratospheric-income types can afford to buy in. (My parents bought our tiny teardown in 1957, long before this trend, and I inherited it.) It's far more diverse in superficial cultural terms than when I was growing up; far more black, brown, and Asian faces. However, they're all of the same 1% social class. I like to say it's like a bag of Jordan almonds - the shells are all different colours, but underneath it's the same nut.
2
Education should invest in students, not students in education. How ya gonna turn it around?
6
Thanks Tina,
Good article. The numbers you quote are eye-openers: "three percent of students come from families in the bottom economic quartile, while the top economic quartile supplies 72 percent." You also provide data on the strong numbers of qualified very low income high schoolers who would not lower the quality of the student base at the nation's top colleges.
To correct this unfairness, you raise two points that seem key to me: colleges need to expand its recruiting to find these golden nuggets in poor neighborhood high schools, and promising low income high schoolers need to be provided better tools to become more aware of their options to apply to, be accepted at, and receive financial aid from these elite schools.
Perhaps some of our renowned foundations can assist by developing programs and search tools that will help educate the leadership and administrative staff at low income high schools and elite colleges on efficient ways that elite colleges and promising poor high schoolers can find each other. There are Apps on how to find available scholarships that students can apply for, and Apps on available financial aid at colleges and universities - why not make these Apps free to schools where median incomes don't rise above some dollar value? Other means surely exist to help put a dent into this important issue. Thanks again for raising our awareness.....
Good article. The numbers you quote are eye-openers: "three percent of students come from families in the bottom economic quartile, while the top economic quartile supplies 72 percent." You also provide data on the strong numbers of qualified very low income high schoolers who would not lower the quality of the student base at the nation's top colleges.
To correct this unfairness, you raise two points that seem key to me: colleges need to expand its recruiting to find these golden nuggets in poor neighborhood high schools, and promising low income high schoolers need to be provided better tools to become more aware of their options to apply to, be accepted at, and receive financial aid from these elite schools.
Perhaps some of our renowned foundations can assist by developing programs and search tools that will help educate the leadership and administrative staff at low income high schools and elite colleges on efficient ways that elite colleges and promising poor high schoolers can find each other. There are Apps on how to find available scholarships that students can apply for, and Apps on available financial aid at colleges and universities - why not make these Apps free to schools where median incomes don't rise above some dollar value? Other means surely exist to help put a dent into this important issue. Thanks again for raising our awareness.....
6
Or we could understand that an elite school creates an elite class that we really don't need or want. Go to a good state college and get a good education with common people.
3
Your missing the larger question---why are these colleges/universities so expensive. No, the answer is not because they are delivering a quality educational--no they are delivering a quality consumer product. Food courts, football stadiums, spas, I could go on, but let's be honest, the pedagogical component of universities---what they should be designed for---is straight out of the 19th century. Ed. Psych. 101 would laugh at lecture halls filled with 300 students and taught by a graduate assistant ---that is worth 60,000. What colleges are selling are bread and circuses, and at the elite level, entry into the world of contacts---networking. You go to college today for a piece of paper and look for someone sitting next you (e.g. the president's daughter) that may be helpful in getting to Wall Street. Lastly, the essential component of a quality school are the professors, who are staffed mostly by adjuncts, with the elite professorship doing research of some sort, but they are not teaching (e.g. which is most instances is also a blessing). I could go on about the 19th century curriculum, but I feel I have made the point.
56
Come now Vasser has no football. Now colleges could keep their athletic programs separate from the academic for money. UF does. I bet full professors get paid a lot and teach a little.
1
SAT and ACT tests are NOT discriminatory ... universities might use those test scores to make admission decisions and maybe those decisions are discriminatory but the test scores are not themselves discriminatory.
38
They've also never been shown to be much of a predictor of performance in class. It would be great, I guess, if a simple number told us all, but so far it seems not to.
Of course they are. They discriminate against students who aren't good at standardized tests. for the record, being good at standardized test taking isn't a sign that you're educated or even intelligent.
Rather than beg the elite private colleges to take more working class kids, which is an unfair request to make of a private school, we should let the privates self-fund and do whatever they want. We should shift the NSF and NIH and Pell grants entirely to the public universities. Without Federal funding, a university can't compete in the STEM fields.
21
And eliminate them for majors that don't lead to a decent career like say liberal arts does not.
1
I teach at two colleges, one private one public. The private college students are more entitled, sophisticated not smarter or more talented than my public college students. This becomes the problem when the lower income students are at the private college where they feel their worth is less than...simply because of the lack of experience and opportunities. This is a societal problem, the colleges the laboratory. The system is a closed one, it looks good on paper but not in reality. In general we should be looking at how to educate people as a society and this does not necessarily mean college. Many of my private college students are there simply because their family can afford it, not because they are interested or qualified.
31
We could tax the high frequency traders of Wall Street and use the proceeds to allow any American free tuition at Public Universities across America.
That's right, Bernie proposed it so it cannot possibly happen.
That's right, Bernie proposed it so it cannot possibly happen.
13
I know a German PhD who is working in this country. His education was free. He said that when the German government tried to impose a "small" fee, they were demonstrating in the streets, and the government backed down (as reported in the NYT). He said that he couldn't understand why American students didn't do the same thing.
It looks like students are beginning to wise up. We'll see whether Comrade Bernie (as Obama calls him) can succeed in getting a provision to restore free tuition in the Democratic platform.
A few demonstrations wouldn't hurt either.
It looks like students are beginning to wise up. We'll see whether Comrade Bernie (as Obama calls him) can succeed in getting a provision to restore free tuition in the Democratic platform.
A few demonstrations wouldn't hurt either.
So you actually think that people don't respond to your taxes? You tax them and they move their trades to where you can't tax them or they get reduced. Try again, or better yet don't.
Vassar has a large and wonderfully diverse pool of talented students from which to draw applicants (NYC and environs) and many students do not want to go too far from home or spend the money on travel. I do not mean to imply, however, that other schools can't do much, much better. First, phase out reserving seats for the legacy crowd and squash players unless they meet the academic qualifications that everyone else must reach (no special treatment); they are primarily kids who come from the most advantaged backgrounds. This would increase the number of seats available to kids from less privileged upbringings. Second, a well developed program at the university level to welcome first generation/poor students that stays involved through all four years helps greatly with retention.
8
Well many football players come from disadvantaged families so limiting them would limit the disadvantaged. Yes special help does help retention, but it is not everything.
A college education is a product/service available for sale. As such it is no more immoral for those with more money to have greater access than it is for them to buy a first class ticket on an airplane. Public colleges were created with a view to remedy the inequity in this. We have in the U.S. a highly diverse network of colleges and universities. To assume, as the writer of this article seems to, that the best education is available only at the most famous schools is incorrect. For a particular student's needs and goals, West Noplace State College might very well be a better choice than Harvard. Many years ago I was accepted at an Ivy League college and a state college specializing in teacher training. I chose the latter because I intended to be a teacher and knew that was where I would meet the people I would need to know in my career. I never regretted it. If public colleges were suitably funded today, the nation would be far better off.
49
Yes and many are funded by lotto money. Here college is free for those that are capable. Not your food or lodging, nor your entertainment either. But tuition and books are covered. Same as in say Florida.
So the climbing wall, the gym that looks like it came out of the NFL, the student housing that is nicer than my house is supposed to be a "leveler?" Our colleges have become party venues where kids have a great time and run up a lot of debt. What happened to education's mission of teaching? Why do kids need this fluff to learn today? Maybe if high schools and colleges returned to their real mission, teaching, there would need to be less leveling.
40
I think you grossly exaggerate. My on attends a CA state university-- the dorms are from the 1960s when the campus greatly expanded. The NFL actually does not play in a gum, but if they did, they would eschew that at my son's school. This school graduates top students in every field-- engineering, architecture, business, and yes, liberal arts. Maybe you should actually engage yourself with a college or college students-- it might open your eyes.
1
“It takes a huge personal commitment from a leader. The only thing driving it is their conscience.”
That such leaders are lacking comes as no surprise.
US colleges are driven by privilege. About two dozen university presidents are compensated with more than a million dollars annually according to the Chronicle of Higher Education.
Academic officers double dip by insisting on tenured full professor positions on the side of their administrative duties and prestigious appointments for their spouses, even at public schools. The president of the University of Virginia may serve as one example. If we must step down, never mind, as a recent case at the University of California demonstrates. A cushy professorial job is waiting for us where we can hang out with good salary and benefits until we are too calcified to show up.
The sense of privilege of senior faculty extends to the student body. Roughly every tenth student at our elite private colleges is legacy (again I cite the Chronicle). Ample opportunity is afforded to international students whose parents pay full freight. Financial assistance to low-income students is given only to the extent the institutions are able to write it off their taxes. Yes, also not-for-profits pay taxes on non-exempt revenue.
Higher education in this country has degenerated into a morose 'business' where only the bottom line counts. Don't expect any hard feelings.
That such leaders are lacking comes as no surprise.
US colleges are driven by privilege. About two dozen university presidents are compensated with more than a million dollars annually according to the Chronicle of Higher Education.
Academic officers double dip by insisting on tenured full professor positions on the side of their administrative duties and prestigious appointments for their spouses, even at public schools. The president of the University of Virginia may serve as one example. If we must step down, never mind, as a recent case at the University of California demonstrates. A cushy professorial job is waiting for us where we can hang out with good salary and benefits until we are too calcified to show up.
The sense of privilege of senior faculty extends to the student body. Roughly every tenth student at our elite private colleges is legacy (again I cite the Chronicle). Ample opportunity is afforded to international students whose parents pay full freight. Financial assistance to low-income students is given only to the extent the institutions are able to write it off their taxes. Yes, also not-for-profits pay taxes on non-exempt revenue.
Higher education in this country has degenerated into a morose 'business' where only the bottom line counts. Don't expect any hard feelings.
2
In 1958, poor, I graduated a NYC high school with grades too low to get into day school at the free tuition city university as a matriculated student..
I got a job during the day, and for 2 years went to city university at night as a non matriculated student.
By then, my grades came up enough so that I was excepted in the day school matriculated program. The program was free. I earned a B or better average that year, and was accepted into the day program. It was free.
I graduated 2 years later with a B++ average, having majored in English Literature and The Classics, and minored in The Classics, and in Sociology and in Education. During those day college years, I worked afternoons and evenings as a group worker in community center programs.
Upon graduation, I was accepted in a 2 year Masters of Social Work program. I received a full tuition scholarship as well as living expenses for each year. I continued to work part time in community work in the evenings.
For the first 5 years post masters i worked full time working with groups in mental health programs.
At that point, I was asked to take a leave for s year, and fill in in a faculty position at an MSW program. By the end of that year, a position opened. I was hired full time at the school of work. I eventually became tenured. I taught and ran departments.
In 1980 I earned a doctorate. I paid minimal tuition.
For years, I gave back by group and community work,developing programs, educating social worker.
I got a job during the day, and for 2 years went to city university at night as a non matriculated student.
By then, my grades came up enough so that I was excepted in the day school matriculated program. The program was free. I earned a B or better average that year, and was accepted into the day program. It was free.
I graduated 2 years later with a B++ average, having majored in English Literature and The Classics, and minored in The Classics, and in Sociology and in Education. During those day college years, I worked afternoons and evenings as a group worker in community center programs.
Upon graduation, I was accepted in a 2 year Masters of Social Work program. I received a full tuition scholarship as well as living expenses for each year. I continued to work part time in community work in the evenings.
For the first 5 years post masters i worked full time working with groups in mental health programs.
At that point, I was asked to take a leave for s year, and fill in in a faculty position at an MSW program. By the end of that year, a position opened. I was hired full time at the school of work. I eventually became tenured. I taught and ran departments.
In 1980 I earned a doctorate. I paid minimal tuition.
For years, I gave back by group and community work,developing programs, educating social worker.
12
Great story, today it would be more difficult but not impossible. Thanks.
1
Once again propagating the myth that any college degree is financially useful - an in-demand degree such as engineering, many sciences from a State School will blow away an Arts degree from Vassar.
How about we talk about steering capable under-served folks into demanding degrees that lead to positive economic outcomes regardless of the college attended.
I think we have enough Baristas with Masters degrees.
How about we talk about steering capable under-served folks into demanding degrees that lead to positive economic outcomes regardless of the college attended.
I think we have enough Baristas with Masters degrees.
19
Whatever happened to fredom of choice? When did people's personal happiness become sacrificed to the demands of the "job market?" What are we doing to our culture by forcing students into STEM programs, while ignoring the things that really last: our literature, art, films, and music? We are turning into a load of sheep, following the money wherever it takes us, hoping desperately that money is going to make up for our inability to think clearly or express anything worth saying, or connect to the rest of the world through meaningful cultural exchanges. We want to run the world as if it were nothing but a gigantic corporation, with all of us no one but cogs in some money-generating machine. We have to fight for our right to pursue happiness in this life. No one's sole purpose in life should be making money. Human beings are complex, feeling, thinking individuals, and to pretend that you can just shove them into cubbyholes and expect society to function is to ignore the fundamentals of reality.
2
Quite true but many of those with masters degrees can't do math or science correctly. In fact they don't think too well either and can be pandered to and bribed for their votes.
Today's editorial page, obviously in full-on campaign mode, provides a horrific glimpse into the progressive future we can expect if Democrats win in November. Pointy-headed little intellectuals will continue to play games with our health care system, as though they are smarter than markets. Colleges will be encouraged to level society by biasing admission decisions such that family success will actually count against applicants and less successful students from poor families will take their places at elite colleges. And political parties will pick candidates according to pre-ordained quotas of diversity and inclusion rather than merit. To complete the picture, the page congratulates Bernie the socialist for showing Democrats that they can only win by pressing an "aspirational" class warfare agenda punishing those who have done well while poorer American have not. Thanks to Bernie, Hillary must run on an agenda of punitive wealth redistribution to support free college and healthcare. Does anyone actually want to live in a world where progressive technocrats are running our lives in these ways? Frightening!
30
"provides a horrific glimpse into the progressive future we can expect if Democrats win in November."
If you say so, it must be true, despite every FOX cliche uttered perfectly. Equality apparently is an idea that scares you.
If you say so, it must be true, despite every FOX cliche uttered perfectly. Equality apparently is an idea that scares you.
15
The kind of equality espoused by modern day liberals is truly a scary idea. It is this very idea which has killed 100s of millions in the past century in Soviet Union, Mao's China, Combodia and so many other places. There is harmony, but no equality, especially the kind of equality forced down by "Holier than thou"s in nature.
1
I can say with all candor that I do indeed want to live in a world where progressive technocrats are in control and able to work toward a more compassionate and equitable society.
So sorry you don't feel the same.
So sorry you don't feel the same.
Substituting one student for another, under affirmative action or whatever guise, seems discriminatory and unfair.
The answer to discrimination is the absence of discrimination, not reverse discrimination.
Instead of focusing on the social cosmetics of top tier institutions, how about facing the fact that public education is failing many students, by ill preparing them for a job, and not helping them to achieve their full potential.
Maybe we need more and better colleges to accommodate a larger population? Maybe colleges should limit the number of foreign students before crowding out US citizens?
Maybe distributed education, on-line recorded lectures and coursework from top universities combined with tight credentialing procedures can alleviate some of the demand for educational attainment and career advancement?
But the social aspect of mixing with others who attend top universities can't be replicated or replaced. Those social networking effects can be generational.
So are we just rearranging the deck chairs, or do we need to build more and bigger boats?
The answer to discrimination is the absence of discrimination, not reverse discrimination.
Instead of focusing on the social cosmetics of top tier institutions, how about facing the fact that public education is failing many students, by ill preparing them for a job, and not helping them to achieve their full potential.
Maybe we need more and better colleges to accommodate a larger population? Maybe colleges should limit the number of foreign students before crowding out US citizens?
Maybe distributed education, on-line recorded lectures and coursework from top universities combined with tight credentialing procedures can alleviate some of the demand for educational attainment and career advancement?
But the social aspect of mixing with others who attend top universities can't be replicated or replaced. Those social networking effects can be generational.
So are we just rearranging the deck chairs, or do we need to build more and bigger boats?
17
Or perhaps high school should properly prepare you for life and a job so college is not required.
1
One of the big problems with this topic is the difference between correlation and causation. Low income students who choose selective colleges over less selective ones may differ in confidence, commitment, family support or other factors than students who make the opposite choice.
11
As someone who unknowingly applied to an Ivy League college that was need blind (and I got in!) and who had grants from the school and Pell grants. And was the only one from my high school in the South to attend such a school I was prepared to be bowled over by the intellect of the other students. I was not. Many of the youth I rubbed elbows with were no smarter than many of the kids I knew who went straight into the military or to 2 year "finishing" schools or to jobs. But many of them had a huge sense of entitlement and sense of superiority that I know goes well beyond a true meritocracy. They also had knowledge about things I knew little, such as about art and classical music which was my chance for out of class learning that I richly soaked up. Thanks to this educational opportunity I earned a PhD at another Ivy League, am a contributing tax payer in a well- off community and am able to give my children a college education without the need for any public assistance or need grant. In my experience elite colleges are a stepping stone to an opened up world of opportunity.
2
Great point, correlation means nothing except the possible need for further analysis to identify (if possible) the cause. Only then can adjustments be made if desired. I could speculate that some don't have family to support them in the changes that happen when you go to school away from your home.
Dismissing SAT scores as "discriminatory" and therefore meaningless is nonsense.
The ability to read and perform math is essential to good college performance.
If one student cannot read and understand "How Colleges Can Again Be Levelers" and another can, should the difference be ignored because it is discriminatory?
Most colleges can provide a great education if the student takes advantage of the opportunity.
The ability to read and perform math is essential to good college performance.
If one student cannot read and understand "How Colleges Can Again Be Levelers" and another can, should the difference be ignored because it is discriminatory?
Most colleges can provide a great education if the student takes advantage of the opportunity.
21
I'm dismayed to learn that Rosenberg's "leveler" is money; the means by which we measure ourselves is the money we have or make.
To me, the problem isn't wealth disparity, but that wealth is the means of measurement. "Wealth = superiority" is our subtle-yet-sublime zeitgeist. We believe that the wealthy are at a higher "level." That's a problem because wealth isn't superior, although the wealthy like the idea that it is.
Ironically, the idea traces to Karl Marx, whose main insight was that human life is controlled by economics or the "golden rule," i.e. "Who has the gold makes the rules," including--don't you know it?--"the golden rule."
A true Marxist says, "Who has the gold makes the rules, and I have the gold." Marx didn't believe in equal wealth. He codified the superiority of wealth. Little emphasis is given to the means by which wealth is attained; the main idea is
that those who get it--by whatever means--are "above" those who don't.
It's problematic because we live--even attend school--only to get money, increasingly by any means; unwise, shallow, and ultimately "inferior" people accumulate wealth (more easily if they're "morally inferior") and are thereby at a "higher level," i.e. "superior."
If wealth is the measurement, we'll never be "level." We must first recognize the inferiority of honoring wealth ("materialism"), and then find other means of measurement. (Hint: check Aristotle's "levelers.")
(I can't fully address this issue with 1,500 characters.)
To me, the problem isn't wealth disparity, but that wealth is the means of measurement. "Wealth = superiority" is our subtle-yet-sublime zeitgeist. We believe that the wealthy are at a higher "level." That's a problem because wealth isn't superior, although the wealthy like the idea that it is.
Ironically, the idea traces to Karl Marx, whose main insight was that human life is controlled by economics or the "golden rule," i.e. "Who has the gold makes the rules," including--don't you know it?--"the golden rule."
A true Marxist says, "Who has the gold makes the rules, and I have the gold." Marx didn't believe in equal wealth. He codified the superiority of wealth. Little emphasis is given to the means by which wealth is attained; the main idea is
that those who get it--by whatever means--are "above" those who don't.
It's problematic because we live--even attend school--only to get money, increasingly by any means; unwise, shallow, and ultimately "inferior" people accumulate wealth (more easily if they're "morally inferior") and are thereby at a "higher level," i.e. "superior."
If wealth is the measurement, we'll never be "level." We must first recognize the inferiority of honoring wealth ("materialism"), and then find other means of measurement. (Hint: check Aristotle's "levelers.")
(I can't fully address this issue with 1,500 characters.)
9
Not following. Rosenberg isn't discussing wealth accumulation (materialism). She's discussing the cost of getting a college education. "We" do not attend school only to get money. Some certainly do attend school only for potential riches. And we all attend school for money to the extent that a college degree usually means better earning potential. But the reason isn't to get rich and therefore "superior." It's because money is one of the necessities to live a decent life. You know. Pay the electric bill and stuff.
Perhaps Haraldson is arguing that metrics other than relative financial wealth should be the measure of the person. That's true and it is a glaring weakness of the American culture, society, and economic system. What is the relative worth of a teacher to a bank president? Not much if the only measurement is wealth. But if the metric is contribution to society and contribution to the future, and contribution to bettering the life of a student then the teacher comes out leagues ahead of a bank president. Developing and truly implementing a fair set of metrics has nothing to do with the cost of college other than, with the present "wealth" metric, the wealthy get the education. All Rosenberg is suggesting is that particular metric should be tossed in the garbage bin.
Perhaps Haraldson is arguing that metrics other than relative financial wealth should be the measure of the person. That's true and it is a glaring weakness of the American culture, society, and economic system. What is the relative worth of a teacher to a bank president? Not much if the only measurement is wealth. But if the metric is contribution to society and contribution to the future, and contribution to bettering the life of a student then the teacher comes out leagues ahead of a bank president. Developing and truly implementing a fair set of metrics has nothing to do with the cost of college other than, with the present "wealth" metric, the wealthy get the education. All Rosenberg is suggesting is that particular metric should be tossed in the garbage bin.
Well Gee if you actually believe that wealth makes great I disagree. I greatly admire people who work in charity for low wages much more than say Hillary who gets massive wealth from corruption. I admire those that earn their wealth, not those that use their position or corruption.
1
Thank you, thank you, thank you for saying this clearly. Until we start valuing other things in life besides money, we will remain a dysfunctional society.
1
Ms. Rosenberg says "Higher education has become a guardian of privilege, but leadership can reverse that"
But of course, the "leadership" of elite higher education benefits the most from their role as guardians of privilege. Since admission to an elite college or university (and, really, we are talking about fifteen or fewer schools) is a virtual guarantee of entree into a life of privilege, seats at these institutions have become subject to extreme demand.
This is so much so that the goal of elite HIGH SCHOOL, public and private, has become not a well-educated and well-rounded graduate, but rather The Perfect Application. For a brief but compelling example, look into the "service trip", now a near requirement to complete The Perfect Application. One and a half days pounding nails, half a day of consciousness raising, four days at a luxury beach resort with a class in the morning, and your status as a would-be elite entrant is secured.
Why would the leadership of ruling class factories ever countenance reform, never mind "leveling"? They like the air up there just fine.
But of course, the "leadership" of elite higher education benefits the most from their role as guardians of privilege. Since admission to an elite college or university (and, really, we are talking about fifteen or fewer schools) is a virtual guarantee of entree into a life of privilege, seats at these institutions have become subject to extreme demand.
This is so much so that the goal of elite HIGH SCHOOL, public and private, has become not a well-educated and well-rounded graduate, but rather The Perfect Application. For a brief but compelling example, look into the "service trip", now a near requirement to complete The Perfect Application. One and a half days pounding nails, half a day of consciousness raising, four days at a luxury beach resort with a class in the morning, and your status as a would-be elite entrant is secured.
Why would the leadership of ruling class factories ever countenance reform, never mind "leveling"? They like the air up there just fine.
5
The CUNY system has decades of success in educating lower income New Yorkers.It does so at a far more reasonable cost than most private institutions.There is honors college system which replicates many of the financial and teaching methods of smaller schools.
It's graduates have a proven track record.So it's not a must to go to Amherst or Vassar,if you are a low income talented student.Thats "elitist" thinking.
Instead of diverting these students elsewhere we should try to keep them in NYC colleges and give them the support to complete their studies.
It's graduates have a proven track record.So it's not a must to go to Amherst or Vassar,if you are a low income talented student.Thats "elitist" thinking.
Instead of diverting these students elsewhere we should try to keep them in NYC colleges and give them the support to complete their studies.
21
First, I don't know that it follows that the most elite schools offer the best education or opportunites. That's an unexplored assumption. Second, what good does college do without jobs and good jobs to follow? Why get top notch training in classics or gender studies or economics if there aren't decent jobs in your field? It seems better to me to focus on creating a plethora of jobs rather than a plethora of college degrees. Maybe colleges should invest some of their endowments in job creation. And as others have mentioned, a good vocational track with good paying jobs at the end is a wonderful idea. I have a son in a small and very good liberal arts college who would rather be learning a trade, but discrimination against the uncollege educated is so great that he needs the degree first. That situation simply waters down the value of the degree. Finally, much of this trouble goes away if the ratio of college costs to income rights itself. Let's up incomes and lower tuition. The situation right now is entirely insane.
40
What we do know is that students at elite colleges are much more likely to graduate within 6 years, a key metric for a number of college rankings methodologies (and easy enough to find on Common Data Sets). Such colleges have the resources to make on-time graduation an institutional priority, providing extensive advising, tutoring support and a commitment to mental health services. These resources attract the type of faculty and staff and students that burnish the reputation and rankings of "elite" colleges.
As for the connection between college degrees and jobs, I think it was Peter Capelli of Wharton who pointed out in "Will College Pay Off" that we have no way of knowing what kind of jobs will be around in 20-30 years. Choosing a college or major for a specific job may be shortsighted (with exceptions, of course). Frank Bruni and William Deresiewicz are but two authors of recent books extolling the liberal arts experience, for endowing graduates with lifelong skills and attributes that make them competitive over the long run. Google any number of studies that show that over time, liberal arts majors do very well.
FWIW, I don't see a contradiction btw pursuing a liberal arts degree and a trade. Your son's college degree will be a gift that keeps on giving, giving him a significant leg up over those not so fortunate.
As for the connection between college degrees and jobs, I think it was Peter Capelli of Wharton who pointed out in "Will College Pay Off" that we have no way of knowing what kind of jobs will be around in 20-30 years. Choosing a college or major for a specific job may be shortsighted (with exceptions, of course). Frank Bruni and William Deresiewicz are but two authors of recent books extolling the liberal arts experience, for endowing graduates with lifelong skills and attributes that make them competitive over the long run. Google any number of studies that show that over time, liberal arts majors do very well.
FWIW, I don't see a contradiction btw pursuing a liberal arts degree and a trade. Your son's college degree will be a gift that keeps on giving, giving him a significant leg up over those not so fortunate.
In Germany there are different types of universities, depending upon what you're going to study. Technical universities (of which we used to have more here) focus on things such as engineering, architecture, etc., regular universities teach humanities and natural sciences. There are art colleges that teach traditional fine arts as well as new media-related arts.
But there is also a strong apprenticeship structure that allows people to really study trades. You not only learn a trade, but you must also learn how to run a business, as well. You have to pass exams to move up the journeyman phase, and there are more exams in order to become a master tradesman. Once you become a master, you can strike out on your own.
If we had a better system in place that turned out really skilled tradespeople, everyone would be better off in the long run. A master tradesperson has had years of training, which increases the value of their work. Vocational schools here in the US tend to be fly-by-night operations whose main focus seems to be squeezing as much money as they can out of their students, who attend part-time for a year or so, don't learn much, and are thrown out into a tough job market with very few skills, little knowledge, and no post-grad support.
Until we get a clue and start improving our training for trades, people such as your son are going to be stuck, and colleges will be flooded with students who would benefit from a different type of education.
But there is also a strong apprenticeship structure that allows people to really study trades. You not only learn a trade, but you must also learn how to run a business, as well. You have to pass exams to move up the journeyman phase, and there are more exams in order to become a master tradesman. Once you become a master, you can strike out on your own.
If we had a better system in place that turned out really skilled tradespeople, everyone would be better off in the long run. A master tradesperson has had years of training, which increases the value of their work. Vocational schools here in the US tend to be fly-by-night operations whose main focus seems to be squeezing as much money as they can out of their students, who attend part-time for a year or so, don't learn much, and are thrown out into a tough job market with very few skills, little knowledge, and no post-grad support.
Until we get a clue and start improving our training for trades, people such as your son are going to be stuck, and colleges will be flooded with students who would benefit from a different type of education.
3
Good points but say gender studies is a hobby, not a career. Same with many majors.
1
Investment in low-income students who meet high academic standards reflects long-term thinking. First-generation wealth is far more inventive and resilient than third-generation wealth.
US News & World Report is for consumers who cannot think for themselves.
US News & World Report is for consumers who cannot think for themselves.
12
“Every incentive these days is to not get low-income students,” said Burd. You have to be kidding me. Try looking at most East Coast colleges where if you're white or Chinese and have good grades, you're out. Its all about race, ethnicity (save the aforementioned Chinese) and how poor you are. Ms. Rosenberg is getting outdated or completely flawed data.
BTW, colleges are not supposed to be levelers of Society. Thats amounts to Communism. Last time I checked, Colleges are there to teach people. Its what those people do with that education that matters.
BTW, colleges are not supposed to be levelers of Society. Thats amounts to Communism. Last time I checked, Colleges are there to teach people. Its what those people do with that education that matters.
19
Tech girl -
The overwhelming majority of students at "East Coast colleges" are white or Asian. Asians in particular are accepted to elite colleges far out of proportion to their percentage of the US population. The current lawsuit against Harvard by a coalition of Asian groups is maddening in its cluelessness - top colleges do not want students whose only asset is high test scores. These bitter and misguided groups would do much better to figure out who is accepted at elite colleges and for what reasons - and then follow that example.
The overwhelming majority of students at "East Coast colleges" are white or Asian. Asians in particular are accepted to elite colleges far out of proportion to their percentage of the US population. The current lawsuit against Harvard by a coalition of Asian groups is maddening in its cluelessness - top colleges do not want students whose only asset is high test scores. These bitter and misguided groups would do much better to figure out who is accepted at elite colleges and for what reasons - and then follow that example.
2
What happens when Malia Obama, to use an extreme example, applies to ten colleges is that nine other students were not admitted. More and more superqualified, elite students are doing this sort of thing, which creates a logjam below and keeps capable students from getting the coveted letter.
7
We spend too much time talking about elite schools. Full stop.
I say that as a graduate of Ivy League universities and past employee of several different types of higher ed institutions, from private and public research universities to liberal arts colleges.
Fact: you could seat all the students currently attending the country's more selective liberal arts colleges — at Williams, Amherst, Wellesley, Pomona, Carlton, Grinnell, Davidson, Bates, Middlebury, et al. — in one football stadium. Just one.
Princeton has 5,275 undergrads this year. Brown has 6,548. Stanford has 7,019.
Meanwhile, about 3.3 million students will graduate from high school this spring.
Meanwhile, no one, except those of us working inside the more typical universities and colleges, knows what's really going on. And even a lot of us are in denial. Really and truly: you may think, because you were a college student once, or because you read an article once, that you get it. You don't. You really don't.
What's going on in higher ed is a travesty. I could ruin your morning with stories. And it's going to get worse before it gets better.
So enough with books and articles about how a student can get into an elite school. Let's direct all that energy into figuring out what higher ed should look like twenty-five years from now, from the perspective of the average student, and then start working toward that.
Before the entire system drowns under the weight of its own mediocrity and cynicism.
I say that as a graduate of Ivy League universities and past employee of several different types of higher ed institutions, from private and public research universities to liberal arts colleges.
Fact: you could seat all the students currently attending the country's more selective liberal arts colleges — at Williams, Amherst, Wellesley, Pomona, Carlton, Grinnell, Davidson, Bates, Middlebury, et al. — in one football stadium. Just one.
Princeton has 5,275 undergrads this year. Brown has 6,548. Stanford has 7,019.
Meanwhile, about 3.3 million students will graduate from high school this spring.
Meanwhile, no one, except those of us working inside the more typical universities and colleges, knows what's really going on. And even a lot of us are in denial. Really and truly: you may think, because you were a college student once, or because you read an article once, that you get it. You don't. You really don't.
What's going on in higher ed is a travesty. I could ruin your morning with stories. And it's going to get worse before it gets better.
So enough with books and articles about how a student can get into an elite school. Let's direct all that energy into figuring out what higher ed should look like twenty-five years from now, from the perspective of the average student, and then start working toward that.
Before the entire system drowns under the weight of its own mediocrity and cynicism.
82
"Before the entire system drowns under the weight of its own mediocrity and cynicism."
Almost there, IMO. Thanks. We need more class traitors to turn this around.
Almost there, IMO. Thanks. We need more class traitors to turn this around.
Good points but it should look like a basically free online university for all that are competent. It could look like that today, but the current system would not like that. High school could be similar for those that could learn that way freeing up more resources for those that can't.
Since when is it the job of private colleges to be "levelers of society"? Their job is to teach students. They choose the students they can best teach.
People seem to have forgotten that the United States Government invested hundreds of billions of dollars in the 1960s and 1970s trying to "level society" and more or less flopped. How is a college with a few thousand students supposed to do better?
You cannot impose an education on somebody - it is something that takes commitment and support. But even then - it's not a solution to everything. How many middle class people are walking around with six figure debt and a degree in some obscure thing that has little or no value in the job market?
A non-profit organization is not a privilege - it is a legal standing. Charities, advocacy groups, educational foundations and institutions - they are all not-for-profit because they do not function as commercial enterprises. This system was set up because society as a whole benefits from these institutions.
People seem to have forgotten that the United States Government invested hundreds of billions of dollars in the 1960s and 1970s trying to "level society" and more or less flopped. How is a college with a few thousand students supposed to do better?
You cannot impose an education on somebody - it is something that takes commitment and support. But even then - it's not a solution to everything. How many middle class people are walking around with six figure debt and a degree in some obscure thing that has little or no value in the job market?
A non-profit organization is not a privilege - it is a legal standing. Charities, advocacy groups, educational foundations and institutions - they are all not-for-profit because they do not function as commercial enterprises. This system was set up because society as a whole benefits from these institutions.
34
>People seem to have forgotten that the United States Government invested hundreds of billions of dollars in the 1960s and 1970s trying to "level society" and more or less flopped.
Brooklyn Traveler, you have your facts wrong.
According to studies by the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the achievement of all students has increased since 1978 and the improvement of hispanic and black students has increased even more, narrowing the gap.
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cnj.asp http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2009455.pdf
Brooklyn Traveler, you have your facts wrong.
According to studies by the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the achievement of all students has increased since 1978 and the improvement of hispanic and black students has increased even more, narrowing the gap.
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cnj.asp http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2009455.pdf
1
Colleges are different from high schools. Elite colleges - and we are talking about elite institutions because few others have the type of resources that Vassar can commit - have always had an outsized influence on policy, civic life, culture and public discourse. I think it's to our benefit that higher education has that kind of reach and therefore that kind of responsibility to model and influence the commonweal - what other institutions or tools do we have to mitigate wealth disparity and class stratification?
Yes and by educating them and providing contacts they make society less level not more, especially today when capability is more important than physical work.
There are a lot of 'death grips' impacting education, but none greater than our nations collective view not to make it very serious priority.
Yes we give it a lot of attention but thats mainly because its flaws have been so magnified by our failure to deliver quality education to all students regardless of economic circumstances.
There is no crime greater than diluting the very thing that makes our country strong. Education can't just be something for the upper quartile. Education can't be controlled by backward thinking school boards. And funding for education can't be an after thought,
There are many outposts of change but the change is coming too slow. Academic literacy, financial literacy, and emotional/lifeskill/and decision making literacy in our nation is well below other nations as well as what we can achieve.
We have the resources but not necessarily the will. Just look at how many people are spooked by the concept of free college to all. Is it doable? Of course it is, but if we don't start putting resources and focus into k-12, college won't be necessary because the students won't be able to do the work.
Complex problems but solvable.
Yes we give it a lot of attention but thats mainly because its flaws have been so magnified by our failure to deliver quality education to all students regardless of economic circumstances.
There is no crime greater than diluting the very thing that makes our country strong. Education can't just be something for the upper quartile. Education can't be controlled by backward thinking school boards. And funding for education can't be an after thought,
There are many outposts of change but the change is coming too slow. Academic literacy, financial literacy, and emotional/lifeskill/and decision making literacy in our nation is well below other nations as well as what we can achieve.
We have the resources but not necessarily the will. Just look at how many people are spooked by the concept of free college to all. Is it doable? Of course it is, but if we don't start putting resources and focus into k-12, college won't be necessary because the students won't be able to do the work.
Complex problems but solvable.
5
(Not Mark) It's not going to happen because we would have to change the very way K12 is taught in this nation and the way the teachers are taught. We have to completely overhaul the colleges of education and at the same time change the pool of applicants. We spend more money than just about every other industrialized nation on public education, we don't need to spend more money until we find out where it is being spent and why it isn't helping students. As for 'college for all', like they have in Europe? It's not for all, it's for the most qualified. You must pass a difficult exam, no AA, no holistic help, just a passing number. I want to see that before I start spending for someone else's kids' college education. I want to see just where the jobs are before we start putting out more social workers, community organizers, etc, instead of engineers and doctors.
1
May I remind everyone that free tuition at CUNY came with competitive exams. Open admissions brought tuition that used to be less than financial aid, but President Reagan changed that deliberately to a loan based system.
We can't go back, but for a kid like me who grew up in East Flatbush, Brooklyn College was still an opportunity to earn a middle-class lifestyle.
We can't go back, but for a kid like me who grew up in East Flatbush, Brooklyn College was still an opportunity to earn a middle-class lifestyle.
14
There are way too few leaders and those who do lead focus their energies primarily on "advancement" -- not academic, but fund-raising and brand promotion.
Our colleges and universities are completely snarled in the hyper-consumer / slick-marketing / sports-dominated / beer-guzzling / vacuous-entertainment and money-mongering culture, all of which has overwhelmed and submerged their academic mission.
This from the recent experience of having shelled out some $325k plus for my three children at three different "public" universities along the east coast. Only $325k, you ask? We got a bargain!
These payments earned us the right to be bombarded with in bound mail and emails promoting the schools brand, funding-raising for the endowment, marketing onerous loans as well as unhealthy food plans controlled by Aramark, and offered the opportunity to purchase junk food (candied popcorn and snickers) along with silly toys (slinky) all neatly bundled as "stress-relieving" care package for your sweet child during exams.
Try speaking to a Dean about an academic issue -- let's say that a professor rarely shows up to lecture, is running a class from a computer -- and the answer is: "To protect student privacy, we cannot speak to parents about academic matters".
Our colleges and universities are completely snarled in the hyper-consumer / slick-marketing / sports-dominated / beer-guzzling / vacuous-entertainment and money-mongering culture, all of which has overwhelmed and submerged their academic mission.
This from the recent experience of having shelled out some $325k plus for my three children at three different "public" universities along the east coast. Only $325k, you ask? We got a bargain!
These payments earned us the right to be bombarded with in bound mail and emails promoting the schools brand, funding-raising for the endowment, marketing onerous loans as well as unhealthy food plans controlled by Aramark, and offered the opportunity to purchase junk food (candied popcorn and snickers) along with silly toys (slinky) all neatly bundled as "stress-relieving" care package for your sweet child during exams.
Try speaking to a Dean about an academic issue -- let's say that a professor rarely shows up to lecture, is running a class from a computer -- and the answer is: "To protect student privacy, we cannot speak to parents about academic matters".
17
90% of African American students enrolled at selective colleges are upper and middle class because they were prepared to do college level work.
College cannot compensate for a lack of K-12 preparation and would become irrelevant if did. Look at the programs 'top 10%' state schools go through to keep students from low performing districts enrolled when they are admitted but lag far behind higher performing peers. The drop out rate is significant.
Let's also dispense with the idea that everyone needs to go to college and strengthen skilled trade education. Not all good paying tech jobs require traditional college. Privilege is not about having read Hegel.
Advocating increased access to selective colleges alone is doubling down on a formula that does not work for the majority of students and future employees. Instead, we need to redefine 'privilege' as the ability to live a productive independent life instead of continuing the lofty fantasies of the current elite.
College cannot compensate for a lack of K-12 preparation and would become irrelevant if did. Look at the programs 'top 10%' state schools go through to keep students from low performing districts enrolled when they are admitted but lag far behind higher performing peers. The drop out rate is significant.
Let's also dispense with the idea that everyone needs to go to college and strengthen skilled trade education. Not all good paying tech jobs require traditional college. Privilege is not about having read Hegel.
Advocating increased access to selective colleges alone is doubling down on a formula that does not work for the majority of students and future employees. Instead, we need to redefine 'privilege' as the ability to live a productive independent life instead of continuing the lofty fantasies of the current elite.
21
Top schools don't admit too many under qualified individuals and those are mostly football / basketball players.
Interesting article. clearly on in a long line pushing an editorial viewpoint (admirable).
But curiously in this article the NYT eschews privilege but looks at the problem through the lens of elitism.
It is laudable to examine how wealthy institutions help those in need; or that they could do more.
But these institutions can only help a tiny fraction of those deserving needy students.
I suppose it only helps to transform several hundred underprivileged kids into Ivy leaguers each year...but it certainly is not going to make a dent in the poverty problem or in other forms of social injustice.
There are many public institution devoted on a much bigger scale to righting this injustice...and they need more support and even congratulations on their efforts ...
The sentiment is commendable; elite institutions should do more; but it is a bit like a country club attacking the problem of social injustice by admitting a few more diverse members...okay - it's good...but what about the masses...
But curiously in this article the NYT eschews privilege but looks at the problem through the lens of elitism.
It is laudable to examine how wealthy institutions help those in need; or that they could do more.
But these institutions can only help a tiny fraction of those deserving needy students.
I suppose it only helps to transform several hundred underprivileged kids into Ivy leaguers each year...but it certainly is not going to make a dent in the poverty problem or in other forms of social injustice.
There are many public institution devoted on a much bigger scale to righting this injustice...and they need more support and even congratulations on their efforts ...
The sentiment is commendable; elite institutions should do more; but it is a bit like a country club attacking the problem of social injustice by admitting a few more diverse members...okay - it's good...but what about the masses...
13
Or better yet allow charity to address those issues, that works the government does not.
I am all for trying to figure out how to expand the opportunities of kids from poor families and communities. One of the things not addressed in the op-ed, is that for many, college costs are actually tuition, fees, room, board, and the opportunity cost of four years of missed income. Some families rely on contributions from their kids.
The argument that merit money goes to the rich needs some examination. "Need based" costs sounds great, but the devil is in the definition. What the government FAFSA defines as an affordable contribution from the family is one of those Orwellian phrases. No one can afford to pitch in 20, 30 or 40% (or more) of their gross income. And few can save enough. Competing necessities - childcare, self-funded retirement, large health premiums, taxes - eat away at college savings. People can save some moeny, but not enough cash to buy another house. And that is what the out-of-pocket contribution can be. Schools use the merit to chisel that house down to a small condo. Without merit, all middle class kids would go to the state schools (and this is happening - look at the acceptance rates at the top campuses in the state system.)
The reality is that college is entirely out of reach for many poor kids, and only in reach for most middle class kids because their parents have good credit ratings. No one can actually afford it.
The argument that merit money goes to the rich needs some examination. "Need based" costs sounds great, but the devil is in the definition. What the government FAFSA defines as an affordable contribution from the family is one of those Orwellian phrases. No one can afford to pitch in 20, 30 or 40% (or more) of their gross income. And few can save enough. Competing necessities - childcare, self-funded retirement, large health premiums, taxes - eat away at college savings. People can save some moeny, but not enough cash to buy another house. And that is what the out-of-pocket contribution can be. Schools use the merit to chisel that house down to a small condo. Without merit, all middle class kids would go to the state schools (and this is happening - look at the acceptance rates at the top campuses in the state system.)
The reality is that college is entirely out of reach for many poor kids, and only in reach for most middle class kids because their parents have good credit ratings. No one can actually afford it.
11
(Not Mark) It is difficult, but it can be done. My husband and I had a very heavy student loan debt burden when we got out of college. It took us 10 years of work, but we paid it all off. We didn't want our kids to have to worry about finances when they went to college so we started saving when they were born. We both went to state schools and so we planned on them attending too. We've managed to put 3 kids through college (one is still going). We live way below our means, have never been on a cruise, etc.
1
I take great offense at the author's phase "financially strapped families scurrying back to state schools", making it seem that a public school is a fool's choice to be used only as a last result. As a graduate of Connecticut's community college, college, and university, I made a wise choice. I got a top notch education and no debt. Many a graduate of an "elite" college can't say the same. I qualified for an excellent job and my life is good. Ms. Rosenberg's attitude is offensive and wrong.
44
(Not Mark) You are very right, along with the SATs are discriminatory line. For people like her there are only the 'right' colleges, the 'right' degree, the 'right' job, etc. Colleges are not for social leveling, they are to get an education. We graduated state schools and so are our kids. First choice.
2
"Just thinking about graduating with a five- or even six-figure amount of debt sends many students from financially strapped families scurrying back to state schools."
Your attitude is condescending toward the 80% of students who will attend state schools (including most high achieving poor kids). These kids wouldn't have to "scurry back to state schools", if they were given a realistic picture about the value of an ivy league degree from the start. (From what I have seen, it's only valuable if you want to write for the NYT. Stem majors see no value added by big name schools.)
Your attitude is condescending toward the 80% of students who will attend state schools (including most high achieving poor kids). These kids wouldn't have to "scurry back to state schools", if they were given a realistic picture about the value of an ivy league degree from the start. (From what I have seen, it's only valuable if you want to write for the NYT. Stem majors see no value added by big name schools.)
23
At the entrance to City College there is a wall with photos of Nobel laureates and captains of industry (like Andrew Grove, who co-founded Intel) who graduated CCNY. (And that doesn't even include the Nobel laureats from Brooklyn College.)
At that time, tuition was free. It was a model that worked.
Every dollar of New York City taxes that we spent on CCNY brought back three dollars when the graduates went to work and paid their own taxes.
We should bring it back.
At that time, tuition was free. It was a model that worked.
Every dollar of New York City taxes that we spent on CCNY brought back three dollars when the graduates went to work and paid their own taxes.
We should bring it back.
The problem with colleges in general is all the attention to slice and dice the applicants when in reality, enrolling those with the skill and ability to succeed and graduate from college regardless of income level, race or any other criteria should be the purpose. It should be a level playing field for entrance to college (including adequate information and counseling for every high school student about the opportunity). I wonder often how many do not get the chance to go on to higher education (and could have succeeded) and what that costs our society. I agree that not all students should go to college but letting those that should go to college fall through the cracks of the system is just as heinous.
7
One thing that strikes me is that if we didn't spend vast sums subsidizing poorly-prepared students who rarely graduate, we could afford to pick up the whole bill for the academically prepared students you mention. This would likely increase the graduation rate of poorer students rather than decreasing it.
33
Ms. Rosenberg makes a good case for making college more accessible for the poor but that is not the real problem in American society today. It is making college accessible to the middle class and the middle class is frozen out of access to elite schools due perhaps to class discrimination but based on making too much money for aid except for the performers. Rebels, free thinkers and others who develop later and perform for their teachers less are left out.
The GI bill, the first and only true leveler focused not on the poor but on a wide cross section of American men all of whom had served and all of whom came from families that paid the taxes that made the college's tax free status possible. The GI bill cut across the money barrier at all levels and brought the middle class and poor equally into the elite institutions.
Current policy ignores the middle class who still pay for the tax free status of colleges. This is one type of discrimination that has the Berners and the Trumpers in the streets.
The GI bill, the first and only true leveler focused not on the poor but on a wide cross section of American men all of whom had served and all of whom came from families that paid the taxes that made the college's tax free status possible. The GI bill cut across the money barrier at all levels and brought the middle class and poor equally into the elite institutions.
Current policy ignores the middle class who still pay for the tax free status of colleges. This is one type of discrimination that has the Berners and the Trumpers in the streets.
56
Okay, so we live in a society where wealth provides advantages. Better schools, nicer neighborhoods, tutors, summer internships, better colleges, more opportunities to go to graduate schools, more opportunities for jobs and careers.
Do you really think you can instantly level the playing field? Dream on.
For most people, it takes several generations to obtain even modest wealth.
My grandparents came to this country in the 1930s dirt poor - living 7 people in a two bedroom apartment in NYC. I got into Columbia for college on a scholarship and paid my own way through Fordham law school at night, working during the day.
I am now upper middle class, but it's still difficult paying $60,000 a year for each of my kids to go to private college - when we don't qualify for financial aid. So they go to SUNY, except one who got into an Ivy League school (we are paying full fare of course).
We all just do what we can and try to improve our lives for the next generation.
That's all we can do.
Do you really think you can instantly level the playing field? Dream on.
For most people, it takes several generations to obtain even modest wealth.
My grandparents came to this country in the 1930s dirt poor - living 7 people in a two bedroom apartment in NYC. I got into Columbia for college on a scholarship and paid my own way through Fordham law school at night, working during the day.
I am now upper middle class, but it's still difficult paying $60,000 a year for each of my kids to go to private college - when we don't qualify for financial aid. So they go to SUNY, except one who got into an Ivy League school (we are paying full fare of course).
We all just do what we can and try to improve our lives for the next generation.
That's all we can do.
33
In college admissions we have a system that currently discriminates actively and vociferously against more than qualified Asian applicants, often children of first generation immigrants from low income backgrounds. Where are their advocates? Who is telling their stories? Answer; nobody at the NYT.
63
Nathan - see above response to Tech Girl.
And what exactly do you mean by "more qualified"? I suspect strongly that you mean higher SAT or ACT scores. The college/university system in the US has a much broader, richer and more complex review process than that. I do not want my kids stuck in a college with kids whose primary qualification is high test scores.
Be careful what you wish for - there are increasing numbers of people who are avoiding colleges with high Asian attendance rates because they are uncomfortable with attitudes like yours.
And what exactly do you mean by "more qualified"? I suspect strongly that you mean higher SAT or ACT scores. The college/university system in the US has a much broader, richer and more complex review process than that. I do not want my kids stuck in a college with kids whose primary qualification is high test scores.
Be careful what you wish for - there are increasing numbers of people who are avoiding colleges with high Asian attendance rates because they are uncomfortable with attitudes like yours.
1
Perhaps, but there's not a strong case or set of data that suggests ethnic Chinese are an underrepresented minority in college populations. Perhaps that's why you're not seeing coverage of the "issue."
1
I’m not sure if my comment will seem relevant to the discussion given in “ How Colleges Can be Levelers of Society”, but as I read this piece I kept thinking of my own experience. I was fourth in a family of nine children. We were a middle class family living “low on the hog”. Our parents instilled in us the importance of being educated and we were told, early and often, to save our money for college. Baby-sitting, after-school bits and summer jobs paid little but, when saved, added up to enough to pay large percentages of tuition and board at our state university. This was the 1970’s and 1980’s.
All of us went to college and were able to graduate without debt.
Our father, born in 1918, would never have seen a college degree if not for the GI Bill. Our mother, a talented artist, would not have been able to earn an art degree if not for scholarship programs. And, we, their nine children, if not for public universities kept affordable, would not have been able to afford a college experience without extra-ordinary help.
Perhaps the best way colleges can be levelers of society is to be what they were not so long ago: affordable and attainable with average incomes.
All of us went to college and were able to graduate without debt.
Our father, born in 1918, would never have seen a college degree if not for the GI Bill. Our mother, a talented artist, would not have been able to earn an art degree if not for scholarship programs. And, we, their nine children, if not for public universities kept affordable, would not have been able to afford a college experience without extra-ordinary help.
Perhaps the best way colleges can be levelers of society is to be what they were not so long ago: affordable and attainable with average incomes.
97
Perfect response! The struggling middle class has been forgotten by the self-righteous rich.
12
While a desire for equality is commendable, I worry that nobody is asking why we expect our education system to be the means by which society is "leveled."
Capitalist ideology demands a theoretically level "playing field" so that when we compete with one another the outcomes can be seen as "fair." But the reality of Capitalism is capital accumulation, a historical and generational process that inevitably privileges the children of the wealthy while disadvantaging the children of the poor. That's the system underneath the ideology.
To the extent that educational institutions are first burdened with the mission of making the Capitalist pipe dream of "a level field" a reality, and then attacked for failing to do so, they serve inequality as both enabler and scapegoat, even as they provide the bare minimum of social mobility that sustains the illusion.
Note, as well, that this mission has nothing to do with actually educating people.
Higher education might well have been seen as the nation's great leveler, but it never was. I graduated from Vassar. Vassar's success should be measured by the quality of the education it provides its students, and not by whether it is an engine for social mobility. It is, after all, a rare school; one with a substantial endowment, long history, great teachers and small student body. There are not enough Vassars in America to make the kind of difference we would need to see to rescue Capitalism from a crisis of its own making.
Capitalist ideology demands a theoretically level "playing field" so that when we compete with one another the outcomes can be seen as "fair." But the reality of Capitalism is capital accumulation, a historical and generational process that inevitably privileges the children of the wealthy while disadvantaging the children of the poor. That's the system underneath the ideology.
To the extent that educational institutions are first burdened with the mission of making the Capitalist pipe dream of "a level field" a reality, and then attacked for failing to do so, they serve inequality as both enabler and scapegoat, even as they provide the bare minimum of social mobility that sustains the illusion.
Note, as well, that this mission has nothing to do with actually educating people.
Higher education might well have been seen as the nation's great leveler, but it never was. I graduated from Vassar. Vassar's success should be measured by the quality of the education it provides its students, and not by whether it is an engine for social mobility. It is, after all, a rare school; one with a substantial endowment, long history, great teachers and small student body. There are not enough Vassars in America to make the kind of difference we would need to see to rescue Capitalism from a crisis of its own making.
7
(Not Mark) College would not cost so much if we didn't fund the loan system so easily. If colleges had some skin in the game you can bet they would be much cheaper and have much less amenities, because they would also be keeping the students to graduation and keeping out the low performing degrees. It's not capitalism that made this, it's the government loan system that funds any student, at any school, for any degree, period.
It's just the same old. At the top level it used to be the problem was affordability. Now the problem is accessibility.
Somebody like me could get accepted into good universities forty or so years ago but couldn't afford them. (This was in the era when the top colleges would meet to discuss financial-aid packages to align their offers, so students couldn't use a better package to determine their choice of where to go.)
Now somebody like me just wouldn't get in. The high school I went to, which used to send 15 or so people to the Ivies every year, now gets less than 2 or 3. Budget cuts and a siphoning of the wealthier students to private schools are the reasons.
It's unrealistic to expect the colleges to solve a problem which starts in high school or before. Either you accept that high school does something - teaches something which is useful to college - or you don't. In the former case a child who has not had the chance to learn the same material in high school as the most fortunate cannot be put into a top university without a much higher risk of failure. In the latter case you might as well shut the high schools and save the money.
With that said, there is still a problem of affordability. Even at the top schools many students graduate with debt, and they are the privileged ones, because elsewhere it's even worse - actually much worse.
Itsy bitsy efforts aren't going to cut it. A generation has been lost. Soon the damage will be permanent.
Somebody like me could get accepted into good universities forty or so years ago but couldn't afford them. (This was in the era when the top colleges would meet to discuss financial-aid packages to align their offers, so students couldn't use a better package to determine their choice of where to go.)
Now somebody like me just wouldn't get in. The high school I went to, which used to send 15 or so people to the Ivies every year, now gets less than 2 or 3. Budget cuts and a siphoning of the wealthier students to private schools are the reasons.
It's unrealistic to expect the colleges to solve a problem which starts in high school or before. Either you accept that high school does something - teaches something which is useful to college - or you don't. In the former case a child who has not had the chance to learn the same material in high school as the most fortunate cannot be put into a top university without a much higher risk of failure. In the latter case you might as well shut the high schools and save the money.
With that said, there is still a problem of affordability. Even at the top schools many students graduate with debt, and they are the privileged ones, because elsewhere it's even worse - actually much worse.
Itsy bitsy efforts aren't going to cut it. A generation has been lost. Soon the damage will be permanent.
18
" The high school I went to, which used to send 15 or so people to the Ivies every year, now gets less than 2 or 3. Budget cuts and a siphoning of the wealthier students to private schools are the reasons"
Your high school probably hasn't switched over to producing The Perfect Application. Your school is probably still trying to educate the students. Boring.
You mentioned "budget cuts". What was the total education budget for your school in 2009 vs. 2015 (bet it's higher now, probably a lot higher). The private schools are "siphoning" students because they generate The Perfect Application with great frequency, and they're very good at it. They bagged the whole educate the students thing about 20 years ago.
Your high school probably hasn't switched over to producing The Perfect Application. Your school is probably still trying to educate the students. Boring.
You mentioned "budget cuts". What was the total education budget for your school in 2009 vs. 2015 (bet it's higher now, probably a lot higher). The private schools are "siphoning" students because they generate The Perfect Application with great frequency, and they're very good at it. They bagged the whole educate the students thing about 20 years ago.
Reason tuition is so high, is that tenured faculty income is based on publications not teaching, vastly raising tuition.
7
Is there a way you can demonstrate this assertion with evidence?
8
Umm, no.
6
Ummmmm.....no. Faculty salaries are a relatively small part of things. Thing about the physical plant, technology costs, libraries, administration, and even the financial aid budget.
6
"Colleges depend heavily on SAT and ACT scores. But these standardized tests are discriminatory — the richer you are, the better you’ll do, even without test-preparation services and professional tutoring..."
This is terrible reasoning. The most parsimonious explanation is that richer students have better educational resources, and quite possibly better aptitude on aggregate.
This oversight is a measure of how pervasive goodthink has become.
Some of the author's other points make sense, but this undermines her credibility.
tarkmarg.blogspot.com.
This is terrible reasoning. The most parsimonious explanation is that richer students have better educational resources, and quite possibly better aptitude on aggregate.
This oversight is a measure of how pervasive goodthink has become.
Some of the author's other points make sense, but this undermines her credibility.
tarkmarg.blogspot.com.
76
The tests are discriminatory--in both the negative and neutral connotations of the word. They DO discriminate on the basis of the ability to take those kind of tests--an ability which can be taught, by the way (and as one of the most successful test prep tutors in NYC, I think I have a good deal of credibility in this area). But they also discriminate on the basis of class, mostly--people with fewer resources can less afford to pay to learn how to do well on these tests (which is why I take on significant numbers of pro-bono or almost pro-bono clients--the richer families who pay more for my services subsidize that).
Almost any one can learn how to do well enough on these tests to be in the running for at least a school with competitive admissions--not that going to such a school is a necessity, as there are plenty of decent schools with less competitive test score standards, or which are test optional. Aptitude has nothing do with it--these are not aptitude tests, despite the outdated contentions of many, but tests that measure a certain set of skills and content areas, and these CAN be learned. It might take longer for those whose educational background has not been as resource rich, as they may not have as much exposure to these skills, or this content, going in, but it is by no means an insuperable task.
Of course, most public, and even most private, schools do not explicitly teach these skills well, if at all--that is why I can even exist.
Almost any one can learn how to do well enough on these tests to be in the running for at least a school with competitive admissions--not that going to such a school is a necessity, as there are plenty of decent schools with less competitive test score standards, or which are test optional. Aptitude has nothing do with it--these are not aptitude tests, despite the outdated contentions of many, but tests that measure a certain set of skills and content areas, and these CAN be learned. It might take longer for those whose educational background has not been as resource rich, as they may not have as much exposure to these skills, or this content, going in, but it is by no means an insuperable task.
Of course, most public, and even most private, schools do not explicitly teach these skills well, if at all--that is why I can even exist.
1
Not when SAT and ACT prep classes costing upwards of $450 are de rigeur for middle- and upper-class students, many of whom also receive expensive private tutoring, while poor students can only wish that their folks had that kind of extra money lying around for prep classes and tutors.
1
Here's an idea: improve secondary education until it's on a par with our Canadian neighbors', for a start. So that we can actualize the reality that so-called higher education should not be for everyone, but rather for those whose intellect and career path may require it in a specialised way. Far too many people receive college degrees in the United States, and still lack the ability to formulate a compound complex sentence, cope with logic problems, or solve a quadratic equation. In short, the diploma has become increasingly worthless and equates to high school of a generation ago. Perhaps if we considered trades and vocational education worthy of our support, since those jobs have largely vanished from our midst to be supplanted by some form of arcane financial fraud or other...
95
Tornachanadar says: "Here's an idea: improve secondary education until it's on a par with our Canadian neighbors', for a start."
How do you do that? I agree it would be wonderful, but.... if you suggest that the amount of money for education be raised, lots of people will complain that since it isn't being raised for THEIR kids, it shouldn't be raised at all. And their kids go to expensive private schools.
How do you do that? I agree it would be wonderful, but.... if you suggest that the amount of money for education be raised, lots of people will complain that since it isn't being raised for THEIR kids, it shouldn't be raised at all. And their kids go to expensive private schools.
3
I once heard a caller to a radio station complain that he shouldn't have to pay school taxes because his kids went to private school. He said it was unfair that he had to pay twice! I nearly threw the radio out the window at that. I don't have kids - but I would gladly pay more to the schools if they could produce better students (and spend the money on books, supplies and teachers), since they are our future.
4
One who has abandoned the USA for Japan may look back at the society in full-blown decline with its hundreds of millions of drooling idiots happily glued to their Chinese toys, and know that there is really no hope left for this country. Similarly, the Nazis did their utmost to dumb down a generation of Germans so that their critical thinking was disabled.
2
Two Observations. You say a student who could get into a top school is nearly twice as likely to graduate there than if she goes to a noncompetitive school. According to who? What research shows this? Why? This seems counter- intuitive. One would think there would be a lot less pressure financial and otherwise on a kid attending say Iowa State as opposed to M.I.T.
If affirmative action discriminates against the poor then end it…today. Colleges should only make exceptions for kids from impoverished backgrounds…is that a problem? If nearly 90 percent of African-American students at selective colleges, some of whom were admitted through racial preferences, are middle- or upper-class then stop it….now. What’s wrong with that? For once I would love to see an intelligent reason why this would not solve the problem you are writing about.
If affirmative action discriminates against the poor then end it…today. Colleges should only make exceptions for kids from impoverished backgrounds…is that a problem? If nearly 90 percent of African-American students at selective colleges, some of whom were admitted through racial preferences, are middle- or upper-class then stop it….now. What’s wrong with that? For once I would love to see an intelligent reason why this would not solve the problem you are writing about.
35
Top schools have significantly more resources to support student achievement, and the atmosphere among students at those schools is more conducive to success.
4
My thoughts exactly. I have been touting for years based on personal experience that the affirmative action system is broken for this exact reason.
4
"You say a student who could get into a top school is nearly twice as likely to graduate there than if she goes to a noncompetitive school. According to who? What research shows this? Why? This seems counter- intuitive."
It DOES seem counter-intuitive, but it's certainly true. The Times itself has covered the grading policies (or lack thereof) at top schools, the bottom line appears to be that ACCEPTANCE at H-Y-P, etc. is taken by the faculty as evidence of ACHIEVEMENT (Narcissus call your agent), such that the median grade at these august institutions is something like an A-minus. Based on my own experience with their students and graduates, it's very, very, VERY difficult to get in trouble or to be dismissed from any elite school. Once you're in, so to speak, you're "in". Not so at your imaginary "Iowa State", where a "D" is still a "D".
It DOES seem counter-intuitive, but it's certainly true. The Times itself has covered the grading policies (or lack thereof) at top schools, the bottom line appears to be that ACCEPTANCE at H-Y-P, etc. is taken by the faculty as evidence of ACHIEVEMENT (Narcissus call your agent), such that the median grade at these august institutions is something like an A-minus. Based on my own experience with their students and graduates, it's very, very, VERY difficult to get in trouble or to be dismissed from any elite school. Once you're in, so to speak, you're "in". Not so at your imaginary "Iowa State", where a "D" is still a "D".
2
Many top schools are now more about promoting privilege than actually offering an education. Yale, for instance, is about to dramatically increase the size of its student body without hiring any new faculty to teach them. They want alums who have already proven that they can give back, rather than those who will move up in the world. But my guess is that the next generation out of Vassar, Amherst, and the University of California will be more prepared for the real world than those who have been educated in these bubbles, where wealthy alums call almost all the policy shots.
15
Yale....They want alums who have already proven that they can give back, rather than those who will move up in the world.
Interesting. A friend's child was just was accepted into Yale as a 'third generation' alum. The college advisor had told this student that based on their transcript they had a very slim chance (why bother applying) chance of getting into a highly selective college.
Interesting. A friend's child was just was accepted into Yale as a 'third generation' alum. The college advisor had told this student that based on their transcript they had a very slim chance (why bother applying) chance of getting into a highly selective college.
3
We know what we are doing is wrong but we can't stop because everyone is doing it! Childish and foolish. Do we have any adults anywhere who will make any decisions based on what is good for the common good instead of Johnny is doing it so so am I!
If getting low income students is good for them and for the institution, then administrators should do it. They meet a lot regionally and nationally. They have high priced conventions, symposia and meetings of all types. Make a pact do the right thing. You "guys" are making big bucks surely you can think of a way!
If getting low income students is good for them and for the institution, then administrators should do it. They meet a lot regionally and nationally. They have high priced conventions, symposia and meetings of all types. Make a pact do the right thing. You "guys" are making big bucks surely you can think of a way!
13
In the absence of an agreed-upon national standard curriculum, colleges put great stock in AP classes because at least they have some idea what the student actually studied. And wealthier kids do better on the ACT and SAT, even without test prep and tutoring, because they begin with better schools and better home environments and learn the material partly by osmosis.
When you come from a home and community where education is not valued or looked down upon, with parents who are disengaged or too busy just trying to survive to be involved in your schooling, or actively sabotaging you so you don't get above yourself; when you attend schools with metal detectors at the entrances, where too many teachers with too little support are battling too much bureaucracy to teach too many students for too little pay; when, even if you supposedly excel, your curriculum is a joke and you can graduate as a straight-A honours student who can barely read ... Financial aid is the least of the problems. You have to reform the K-12 system from the earliest grades up, so that it actually teaches something, with a consistent curriculum and standards for ALL schools regardless of neighbourhood. Yeah, I know: good luck with that.