The second most radical option would be for the Ivy League to abolish what is called “ALDC” — athletics, legacy, dean’s list and children of faculty and staff. Forty-three per cent of Harvard’s intake come from one of these groups. The first, athletics, includes sports that can only be learned by the privileged, such as lacrosse, sailing and rowing. The generous athletics intake by universities is why so many recent admission corruption scandals, such as the FBI’s Varsity Blues sting operation, involved athletics directors. Contrary to popular opinion, most athletics scholars are not black basketball players. Sixty-five per cent are white.
This is in the Financial Times, all of whose readers, one assumes, passionately disagree with these options.
And then there’s the author, Edward Luce himself!
July 5th, 2023 at 2:37PM
My experience is that exclusive US unis serve three categories:
The wealthy: As quoted
The specialists: Virtuoso musicians, mathematicians, writers, athletes… – where early accomplishments are possible
The talented outsiders: Those who when given resources and access, accomplish great things
All of these are geared to more recognition, financial and otherwise for the institution. Especially financial.
Curiously, much of the worth of the undergraduate experience is due to the postgraduate and professional programs at these places.
July 6th, 2023 at 7:17AM
Dmitry: I’m with you on wealthy. On talent: People who are already recognized as famous actors by the age of 18 (Jodie Foster, Brooke Shields) seem attractive to the Ivy League; less so more obscure artists w/ uncertain earning potential. Your outsider category would cover, I guess, geographical distribution types (Walter Kirn and soon to be defunct affirmative action types, both of which represent a small portion of admittees). I agree that the powerhouse grad school component of these schools represents a huge advantage for undergrads.
July 6th, 2023 at 5:05PM
Peter Drucker, back in 1969, asserted that a major advantage America had over Europe is that we did *not* give excessive advantages to the graduates of a few ‘elite’ universities:
“One thing it (modern society) cannot afford in education is the “elite institution” which has a monopoly on social standing, on prestige, and on the command positions in society and economy. Oxford and Cambridge are important reasons for the English brain drain. A main reason for the technology gap is the Grande Ecole such as the Ecole Polytechnique or the Ecole Normale. These elite institutions may do a magnificent job of education, but only their graduates normally get into the command positions. Only their faculties “matter.” This restricts and impoverishes the whole society…The Harvard Law School might like to be a Grande Ecole and to claim for its graduates a preferential position. But American society has never been willing to accept this claim…”
We as a country are a lot closer to accepting Grande Ecole status for Harvard Law School and similar institutions than we were when Drucker wrote the above.
Hi Margaret!
July 7th, 2023 at 6:52AM
Hey David! Long time etc etc!
Drucker said it well. It’s still true that American corporate execs and other top types tend to come from state schools, if I’m recalling the stats correctly; but it’s also true that you can’t keep replicating a richer and richer, more and more entitled elite from unspeakably over-endowed places like Harvard without social peril – not to mention the injustice of it.
Until Harvard does something about both its obscenely selfish endowment and its admissions policies, placing people like Claudine Gay (or for that matter Drew Faust) in the presidency is purely symbolic. Might as well bring back L Summers.