<p>NY Times review: “Excellent Sheep,” by William Deresiewicz, takes aim at America’s elite universities and the graduates they produce.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/13/books/excellent-sheep-william-deresiewiczs-manifesto.html”>http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/13/books/excellent-sheep-william-deresiewiczs-manifesto.html</a></p>
<p>While he does have some valid points about a lot of the students at these schools being overly preprofessional at the expense of intellectual curiosity, I have a big problem with the way he describes the education one receives at these schools. I received a wonderful education at Penn. My professors were not only outstanding researchers but also great teachers and mentors. I met a lot of friends who shared my love for science. Most of us are starting PhDs in the fall. There were tons of resources and opportunities in many area. I mostly took advantage of the amazing research opportunities. Not all of the students are like what Deresiewicz describes, some are actually very compassionate and intellectually engaged individuals.</p>
<p>His discussion of TFA does raise some good points (I met kids like that in a mentoring program who thought that they had singlehandedly made a kid want to go to college), but again, it is a huge generalization. I know a very smart kid (URM) from my class who is doing TFA who actually went to a KIPP charter school. So you can’t say he is doing it because he thinks he will save the world, most people I know who are doing TFA don’t see it that way. They are genuinely interested to learn about the problems in American education from first experience. They know that sadly, at the end of the day, there is only so much you can do for these kids since their home life is entirely out of the teacher’s control.</p>
<p>I also disagree that affirmative action should be based only on socioeconomic status. It really needs to take into account both. I agree that wealthy minorities (well educated parents, no financial aid, etc) really don’t need affirmative action and giving them these preferences takes away from the students who really do deserve it. However, for middle class minorities (who would be receiving some but not full financial aid at these institutions), race is very much a part of their everyday life and I would argue that they should benefit from affirmative action as well as poor whites and minorities. For these students, going to a top school can open doors and put them on a more even playing field for the future.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here comes the debate about the definition of “middle class” versus “wealthy” again…</p>
<p>If the dividing line is whether one gets financial aid at Harvard, you can figure it out here: <a href=“Net Price Calculator”>https://college.harvard.edu/financial-aid/net-price-calculator</a></p>
<p>It is not news that HYP are feeders to Wall Street and elite consulting employment.</p>
<p>Has Deresiewicz figured out how to talk to a plumber?</p>
<p>I think the guy is full of baloney. The reviewer fell into the trap of thinking the overall argument is good because the author makes a few good points. I will reserve total judgment unless and until I read the book–which I will only do if I can get it at the library.</p>
<p>Rather than trying to rebut his views, which is like trying to rebut the canonical Book of Daniel, or responding to his book, I’ll diagnose an ailment, launch a preemptive strike. </p>
<p>Marxism: “If you don’t believe that the bourgeoisie is oppressing the proletariat and that the proletariat should take a stand, you’ve been indoctrinated.”</p>
<p>Freudian psychoanalytic theory: “If you don’t believe in psychoanalysis, you are resisting it.”</p>
<p>Deresiewiczianism: “If you don’t believe my dubious anecdotes-cum-extravagant caricurating, you are an excellent sheep, a miseducated little sh-t. Exceptions prove the rule.”</p>
<p>At least Marx and Freud dress their tautologies with trenchant and provocative claims.</p>
<p>Symptoms of Deresiewiczianism:</p>
<ol>
<li>Quoting Deresiewicz’s pieces without having shown that you have read or thought about what he says at all </li>
<li>Ignoring all “evidence” that negates your preconceived notions, even when the proponents have no obvious “ax to grind” with any school and have greater experience with “elite schools” than Deresiewicz does</li>
<li>Spouting half-truths and doggerel about “elite schools” as if you’ve lived at all of those schools for decades, when in fact you’ve read one or two articles</li>
<li>Transforming every observation into a theory or dichotomy, or transforming every theory or dichotomy into an observation (c.f. Amasa Delano of Herman Melville’s Benito Cereno)</li>
</ol>
<p>If we’re all excellent sheep, what should we call those who hang onto D.'s every word? Mediocre sheep? They should read Bacon. Novum Organum. Descriptions of the four idols.</p>
<p>Yes, this post is facetious.</p>
<p>And:</p>
<p><a href=“What College Can’t Do | The New Yorker”>What College Can’t Do | The New Yorker;
<p>(With cartoons:
<a href=“What Cartoons Can Do | The New Yorker”>What Cartoons Can Do | The New Yorker)</p>
<p><a href=“David Brooks article”>http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Fac/Adler/Misc/Brooks-article.htm</a></p>
<p>Not rebuttals. They draw different conclusions from similar evidence.</p>
<p>I don’t think the reviewer liked the book very much.</p>
<p>Also, I think that some CCers will devour the guy’s take on the Yale admissions process. From the review:
</p>
<p>There were related threads on a recent article that he wrote on a related topic just preceding the publication of the book:</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/1670550-the-nation-s-top-colleges-are-turning-our-kids-into-zombies-p1.html”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/1670550-the-nation-s-top-colleges-are-turning-our-kids-into-zombies-p1.html</a></p>
<p>It’s always informative to hear other people’s opinions on what you should be doing instead of what *you * have chosen. I’m confidant that the book rings loudly in the the halls of Morgan Stanley and McKinsey. </p>
<p>The reviewer writes with some perspective and a sense of humility, both of which would be nice additions to the author’s work.</p>
<p><a href=“‘Excellent Sheep,’ William Deresiewicz’s Manifesto - The New York Times”>‘Excellent Sheep,’ William Deresiewicz’s Manifesto - The New York Times;
<p>I didn’t know where to post this, but certainly it will be more interesting to parents than the young undergrads/college students themselves. I hope you click the link and enjoy the review - I thought it was fascinating</p>
<p>"The particulars of this experience will make parents break out in a prickly rash. I am still recovering.</p>
<p>Only five or six extracurricular activities? Those are slacker numbers. Does the applicant have “good rig” (academic rigor)? What about “top checks” (highest check marks in every conceivable category)? Is he or she “pointy” (insanely great at one thing)? How are his or her “PQs” (personal qualities)? Or is your child, as one committee member said of an applicant, “pretty much in the middle of the fairway”?"</p>
<p>What’s so wrong with this? They have 30,000 applicants. Why shouldn’t they be looking for lots of ECs, full academic rigor, high check marks, insane greatness, and strong personal qualities? For the life of me, I don’t see what’s so cringe inducing. What else should they do? Take every nth applicant? Rack and stack scores? </p>
<p>This is very odd to me that the above paragraph is called out. </p>
<p>This paragraph is called out because it supports Deresiewicz’s point that the students being admitted to the elite schools are people pleasers rather than people who are free minded and intellectually curious.</p>
<p>Having ten ECs doesn’t necessarily make someone an interesting person. Most high school ECs don’t mean too much (other than volunteering for genuine purposes, not just hours) and the ones that do are usually obtained through connections. The accessibility of ECs also varies with school. My school was so competitive you could literally get cut from every sports team, science Olympiad, and even social service club! </p>
<p>Aging baby boomer chides kids these days for foregoing “free-thinking” in favor of preparing themselves to succeed in a global economy his generation has made less stable and secure. Film at eleven. </p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Maybe certain of the varsity sports?</p>
<p>“Ranking” ECs by their utility to the student (long term development and correlation with success) has probably been done somewhere on CC. After seeing some other unusual CC threads I wouldn’t be surprised. Would be interesting - but presumably such a list is used by admissions personnel in ranking applications.</p>
<p>I do remember that being able to make it through a rigorous high school sport at varsity level has been claimed to correlate with later academic and professional success. At Colorado School of Mines they even claimed that athletes had higher GPA and did not choose different majors (NB: mines is not a D1 school), and I have heard this claim repeated by college athletes (obviously not those from D1 Basketball or Football programs) who I have met at the airport waiting for their plane. There is a certain logic that if you can show the work effort required for a competitive sport, you will learn to improve self-discipline.</p>
<p>Are there other ECs (other than varsity sports and perhaps success on elite academic teams) which correlate strongly with long term success in college or career?</p>
<p>OMG, how do the kids who don’t have parents to obsess over this stuff and guidance counselors with the inside track ever get into selective colleges?</p>
<p>PG, I didn’t read that paragraph as being critical of the college admissions policy in any serious way, merely as a representation of how parents who have not yet been exposed to this process may react when they first learn of it. No matter what you think of the criteria colleges use, the process is much more competitive, stressful, and fraught than it used to be when we went to school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, let’s talk about this. My kids attended a public elementary/middle school for gifted kids. If kids met the admission criteria based on grades and test scores, they were admitted. In some years there were more kids applying who met those criteria than there were spots in the entering class, so the school held a lottery. Could colleges do the same? Could they say, anyone with GPA above X and SAT above Y is put into our admissions pool, and after that it’s just random chance who gets a spot?</p>
<p>It wouldn’t give colleges the same control over the exact makeup of their student bodies, but on the other hand it would save a lot of resources, both in the admissions office and on the part of the students and families. And it might reduce kids’ stress in highschool.</p>
<p>@oldmom4896 </p>
<br>
<br>
<p>But in the end, most of us parents just try to help the kids get to the ECs they are passionate about, and not worry about which ones are “best.”</p>
<p>To be honest I worry far more about kids not having any activities (after seeing kids on video games/facedbook/texting 24x7) than about picking the right activities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Those are activities – just not the ones that tend to impress most older people, including admission readers.</p>