<p>I was browsing the net and came across this article/paper. It’s quite lengthy but it is very interesting. Enjoy</p>
<p>[The</a> Disadvantages of an Elite Education | The American Scholar](<a href=“http://www.theamericanscholar.org/the-disadvantages-of-an-elite-education/]The”>The American Scholar: The Disadvantages of an Elite Education - <a href='https://theamericanscholar.org/author/william-deresiewicz/'>William Deresiewicz</a>)</p>
<p>That article is arguing that wearing a skirt precludes having individual legs.</p>
<p>Perhaps that author himself feels alienated from people who didn’t go to the Ivy league (but is evidently circumspect enough to write an article about it), but that’s highly unlikely to be the case for most students.</p>
<p>I would argue that the purpose of personal essays, recommendations from teachers, counselor, and interviews are all part of the apparatus and design of admissions that determine what interpersonal strengths a student has.
The stereotype of nose in the air G20 school students being the only inhabitants of an Ivy league university is about as valid as the stereotype of black people being gun violent drug addicts.</p>
<p>Neither are true but present a convenient demon for people to get angry at.</p>
<p>i agree ^ ^. the “working class” and “upper class” are not different species. he feels awkward about the fact he has “an elite education” and his plumber does not, so he blames Yale.</p>
<p>I really don’t think it’s fair for this guy to blame his white upper-middle-class guilt on the Ivy League. Not that there aren’t problems with the very idea of “elite” education, but… seriously, the fact that you’re incompetent at dealing with class isn’t Yale’s fault.</p>
<p>The article also commits the sin of conflating wealth, class and race.</p>
<p>I’ll agree, there is generally a strong correlation between the three, but it’s not enough to merit any sort of causal relationship.</p>
<p>William Deresiewicz is committing pseudo intellectualism, at best.</p>
<p>At worst he’s railing against a system that he cannot succeed in, (and therefore vilifies.)</p>
<p>Apparently I’m the first person here to take the author’s side, but I truly believe that he has a point. Our system of higher education DOES prepare its students to conform to the modern class structure. It DOES inculcate the students of the more selective schools with a sense of “elite-ness” and privilege. It DOES gradually wear down the students of the less selective schools, preparing them to accept the fact that they will always be working for somebody else. It is, in short, a prop for the established order.</p>
<p>I did not get the impression that he “cannot succeed in” this system; that is a groundless assumption. Even if it is true, though, what of it? Perhaps the reason he rails against the system IS that he cannot succeed in it. If there are people who are truly incapable of succeeding in a system, surely that is an indication that there is something inherently wrong with that system. At the very least, our system of higher education definitely needs some major reform–perhaps even revolution.</p>
<p>It’s very long… (and its Sunday and I’m lazy) </p>
<p>I skimmed through it and I found it insightful. I agree with many points the author tries to make but disagree with many others. </p>
<p>An top notch education may truly shut doors to several career opportunities simply because your own self perception on what people would think of you. </p>
<p>State schools MAY (I’m not saying its definite) have higher standards of grading and Ivy Leagues do have a certain tendency to inflate grades. </p>
<p>However in certain parts I’d have to disagree. The author seems to be overemphasizing the effect of a top school’s impact on a student’s personality, their social ideologies, and their character traits. A four year college education is exactly just four years after the first eighteen years of a person’s life, in a critical period when their values are set, and personality is formed. I somehow doubt that the psychological effect of a top school education would be so entirely all-encompassing, brain-washing to such an extent that it would change the type of person we are at our core.</p>
<p>The author could make the argument that many students that fit the mold of a top school student are “intellectual” in their mindset, but I believe that humans are in possession of multiple intelligences- that certain types of intelligences are not individual or exclusive but composite in their nature. It’d be a grossly false assumption to state that because students are “trained” to be linear in their thinking, that they have lost all other traits of personality that make up a balanced individual. </p>
<p>The final point I disagree with(and I do have to watch TV shows soon), is the author’s almost unwavering certainty that the “elite” will and can only be produced through the process such schools. The author may disagree with the educational system, criticize its numerous faults, but in the end the author is a product of such a system. He seems to realize it himself, from reading the opening paragraph of the paper. </p>
<p>“the kid whom everyone wants at their college or law school but no one wants in their classroom, the kid who doesn’t have a minute to breathe, let alone think, will soon be running a corporation or an institution or a government.” I disagree that top schools will inevitably produce leaders. I believe that leaders produce themselves, despite whereever they may go to school. Yes, there is elitism and the unmistakable sense of pride associated with these schools, but its mistaken to say that these schools inherently train students to think in a linear fashion and “within the system”. If that should be the line of criticism, then our entire educational system is at fault, from our first pre-school to our greatest Ivy decked professional schools. The truth is that whether you get your degree from Yale or the worst community college, their educational system would run into the pitfalls that the author is lamenting. Our educational system would have to in order to be pragmatic. Sure the focus is “intellectual” but how would a school train students in other forms of intelligences? Writing a long paper (even one as long as the article) is easier to do than actually working out a practical system in which this works. </p>
<p>Yes, there are a few good insights, but I disagree as a whole. Now I have to go back to my TV shows in my life where I don’t " have a minute to breathe, let alone think". :)</p>
<p>I think I’m going to consider this article as a bit of perspective to keep in mind through college. He makes certain assumptions based on single events, and I think the part about everyone hiding behind a facade of normalcy is sensationalized. Of course, every does to some degree…</p>
<p>Maybe I’m too idealistic and naive?
Whatever. This isn’t going to keep me from getting an “elite” education. Education is what you make of it, at Yale or community college.</p>
<p>Even if his generalization that everyone at Yale is obsessed with being “normal” is grounded in fact, I’ll still be ecstatic to go there. Should be fun to shake things up a bit. :)</p>
<p>This was fun to read (as is any piece of eloquent literature), but doesn’t really apply to me. I come from a working class background and city, so these plumbers and mechanics are my parents, my family, and my friends. I’ll probably always be able to talk to them, even if I DO go to Yale.</p>
<p>Well, it will be interesting to find out, considering that I come from a “poorer background” whether I --what was that? oh yes-- “polarize in the opposite direction, flying off into extremes of disaffection and self-destruction.”</p>
<p>I guess we will see.</p>