Thursday, March 19, 2015
Political Mayhem Thursday: College Admissions Frenzy
Frank Bruni is coming out with a book that encourages Americans to calm down a little about college admissions. Here is part of what he said in a New York Times piece last week:
[L]ife is defined by setbacks, and success is determined by the ability to rebound from them. And there’s no single juncture, no one crossroads, on which everything hinges.
So why do so many Americans — anxious parents, addled children — treat the period in late March and early April, when elite colleges deliver disappointing news to anywhere from 70 to 95 percent of their applicants, as if it’s precisely that?
I’m describing the psychology of a minority of American families; a majority are focused on making sure that their kids simply attend a decent college — any decent college — and on finding a way to help them pay for it. Tuition has skyrocketed, forcing many students to think not in terms of dream schools but in terms of those that won’t leave them saddled with debt.
...
But for too many parents and their children, acceptance by an elite institution isn’t just another challenge, just another goal. A yes or no from Amherst or the University of Virginia or the University of Chicago is seen as the conclusive measure of a young person’s worth, an uncontestable harbinger of the accomplishments or disappointments to come. Winner or loser: This is when the judgment is made. This is the great, brutal culling.
What madness. And what nonsense.
FOR one thing, the admissions game is too flawed to be given so much credit. For another, the nature of a student’s college experience — the work that he or she puts into it, the self-examination that’s undertaken, the resourcefulness that’s honed — matters more than the name of the institution attended. In fact students at institutions with less hallowed names sometimes demand more of those places and of themselves. Freed from a focus on the packaging of their education, they get to the meat of it.
To a large degree, I think Bruni is right. Many of the most successful people I know went to schools below the top tier.
What do you think?
[L]ife is defined by setbacks, and success is determined by the ability to rebound from them. And there’s no single juncture, no one crossroads, on which everything hinges.
So why do so many Americans — anxious parents, addled children — treat the period in late March and early April, when elite colleges deliver disappointing news to anywhere from 70 to 95 percent of their applicants, as if it’s precisely that?
I’m describing the psychology of a minority of American families; a majority are focused on making sure that their kids simply attend a decent college — any decent college — and on finding a way to help them pay for it. Tuition has skyrocketed, forcing many students to think not in terms of dream schools but in terms of those that won’t leave them saddled with debt.
...
But for too many parents and their children, acceptance by an elite institution isn’t just another challenge, just another goal. A yes or no from Amherst or the University of Virginia or the University of Chicago is seen as the conclusive measure of a young person’s worth, an uncontestable harbinger of the accomplishments or disappointments to come. Winner or loser: This is when the judgment is made. This is the great, brutal culling.
What madness. And what nonsense.
FOR one thing, the admissions game is too flawed to be given so much credit. For another, the nature of a student’s college experience — the work that he or she puts into it, the self-examination that’s undertaken, the resourcefulness that’s honed — matters more than the name of the institution attended. In fact students at institutions with less hallowed names sometimes demand more of those places and of themselves. Freed from a focus on the packaging of their education, they get to the meat of it.
To a large degree, I think Bruni is right. Many of the most successful people I know went to schools below the top tier.
What do you think?
Comments:
<< Home
I went to a small division three private school in southern Minnesota. I loved it and wouldn't change a thing.
Amen. I think this is completely true--with this one caveat: the people who aspire to be movers and shakers inside the Beltway or on Wall Street or at high profile Fortune 500 companies really do have so much riding on admission to elite schools that their jubilation or disappontment is completely in keeping with their future prospects--whether that is a good thing (probably not) or needs to change (probably will eventually), I think, is a separate question.
WF-- Bruni doesn't make the same claim for grad school that he does for undergrad (and he got his entree to the big time via a Masters from Columbia Journalism School). I think he is right there, too. I know very well that I have enjoyed unearned credibility at times (and access to discussions and opportunities) just because I went to Yale Law.
It really depends on the club you want to join, as stated above. Sometimes it does matter, and not where you'd think it would. Silicon Valley is supposedly a meritocracy, but I talked with an old protege of Bill Hewlett (of HP), and in his inner circle he only wanted people who'd attended private colleges ("there's a little something extra.") He was a Stanford man, of course. Many of the "garage start-ups" Silicon Valley is famous for came from Stanford students and grads who were talented and motivated but also well-funded and well-connected from birth (and from connections they made at Stanford with similar people). Sometimes it was a garage, but a garage with AC and a minibar.
But if I just wanted to be good at what I wanted to do and didn't want into the "in" club as a matter of entitlement, I'd go anywhere. And if you're good, that might be enough. Just, "in" colleges are about the club as well.
But if I just wanted to be good at what I wanted to do and didn't want into the "in" club as a matter of entitlement, I'd go anywhere. And if you're good, that might be enough. Just, "in" colleges are about the club as well.
Mark--all your credibility has been well-earned and well-deserved in my view. But I take your point. Yale Law School was a great choice for you--and most people who can get there.
I went ahead and read the full Bruni piece after your comment, and it really is a fascinating article--although I sometimes get the sense that Bruni is saying you can go ahead and attend an inferior school like the University of Texas and still make it if you make the right decisions (as you referenced) for grad school. "There are two road that you can go down, but don't be alarmed now; there's still time to change the road you're on."
Of course, that assumes that real players have to get to the Ivies (or whatever the Ivy League version of the feeder school for the "club you want to join"--loved that analysis). It was also hilarious to me because Bruni views UT as a lesser school--and we, of course, see it as one of the great institutions of higher learning in the world. But, truth to tell, the folks at the NYT see UT and certainly Baylor as something way off the beaten path.
I appreciate your mention of Bruni and his college. I was just then doing a cursory review of NYT columnist. Douthat and Kristoff are Harvard. David Brooks is Chicago. Friedman is Amherst. Every once in a while you will have a hard charger like Charles Blow (Grambling) make the cut--but in the world of Frank Bruni he must realize that the Ivies offer tremendous advantages.
More along those lines: 9 justices of the Supreme Court of the USA and all Ivy Leaguers (which you have noted in the past as troubling). So many of our recent POTUS from either Harvard or Yale (few and far between from Eureka College or Southwest Texas State Teacher's College--and seemingly less and less likely).
Anyhow, back closer to the original point (maybe), I am hearing in all this (more yours than his, I think) that one can have a very happy life outside the Ivy League rat race--especially if you are not out to rule the world. Again, Amen! I agree 100 percent.
On the other hand, if you are out to rule the world, i would still counsel err on the side of caution; go to Harvard.
I went ahead and read the full Bruni piece after your comment, and it really is a fascinating article--although I sometimes get the sense that Bruni is saying you can go ahead and attend an inferior school like the University of Texas and still make it if you make the right decisions (as you referenced) for grad school. "There are two road that you can go down, but don't be alarmed now; there's still time to change the road you're on."
Of course, that assumes that real players have to get to the Ivies (or whatever the Ivy League version of the feeder school for the "club you want to join"--loved that analysis). It was also hilarious to me because Bruni views UT as a lesser school--and we, of course, see it as one of the great institutions of higher learning in the world. But, truth to tell, the folks at the NYT see UT and certainly Baylor as something way off the beaten path.
I appreciate your mention of Bruni and his college. I was just then doing a cursory review of NYT columnist. Douthat and Kristoff are Harvard. David Brooks is Chicago. Friedman is Amherst. Every once in a while you will have a hard charger like Charles Blow (Grambling) make the cut--but in the world of Frank Bruni he must realize that the Ivies offer tremendous advantages.
More along those lines: 9 justices of the Supreme Court of the USA and all Ivy Leaguers (which you have noted in the past as troubling). So many of our recent POTUS from either Harvard or Yale (few and far between from Eureka College or Southwest Texas State Teacher's College--and seemingly less and less likely).
Anyhow, back closer to the original point (maybe), I am hearing in all this (more yours than his, I think) that one can have a very happy life outside the Ivy League rat race--especially if you are not out to rule the world. Again, Amen! I agree 100 percent.
On the other hand, if you are out to rule the world, i would still counsel err on the side of caution; go to Harvard.
AWF
My Ivy friends down here in the Wasteland are for the most part fine fellows, reasonably successful, and do not wear their pedigrees on their sleeves.
Once in a while one of their classmates back east has a bit of good fortune to share, and they benefit from connections.
I lunch on Monday with a Yale graduate (undergrad), and on Tuesday with a Yale law grad and twice dean of a local law school (masters). They hold their own in conversation and in the practice areas in which they concentrate.
The but is, however, that by and large, these friends and their Ivy cohorts have been no more or less successful in the Wasteland than grads of our state law school. They differ from the latter in this. Many, but not all, came from and returned to some wealth, or were legacies when legacies meant something.
Otherwise, having returned to their roots rather than having "joined the club," they are mostly indistinguishable from the crowd. That is to say, they are in the lives they now lead as parochial as the rest.
Here is an example. My best friend is a secular jew and a Yale grad. His wife was a Brown grad, and an Episcopalian. She was a friend and student of Walker Percy. Neither had ever been to Texas.They had a vague idea that it was somewhere beyond the sunset.
For several years a professor from Jerusalem on the Brazos would came to town to lecture on southern writers, Percy being one. I invited them to hear him. They don't mince words and we are too good friends to hold back. They had excellent teachers back east, of course but neither thought the Waco man inferior.
After he returned in later years to lecture on C.S. Lewis, the catholic short story lady from Georgia, and G.K. Chesterton, they convinced me of their sincerity when each confessed not to have heard anyone broader and deeper at their respective alma maters.
It is too bad, if it is true, that for easterners "UT and
certainly Baylor" are off the beaten path of their eyes and lives. But, I refuse to feel sorry for them.
And, I agree with WF.
My Ivy friends down here in the Wasteland are for the most part fine fellows, reasonably successful, and do not wear their pedigrees on their sleeves.
Once in a while one of their classmates back east has a bit of good fortune to share, and they benefit from connections.
I lunch on Monday with a Yale graduate (undergrad), and on Tuesday with a Yale law grad and twice dean of a local law school (masters). They hold their own in conversation and in the practice areas in which they concentrate.
The but is, however, that by and large, these friends and their Ivy cohorts have been no more or less successful in the Wasteland than grads of our state law school. They differ from the latter in this. Many, but not all, came from and returned to some wealth, or were legacies when legacies meant something.
Otherwise, having returned to their roots rather than having "joined the club," they are mostly indistinguishable from the crowd. That is to say, they are in the lives they now lead as parochial as the rest.
Here is an example. My best friend is a secular jew and a Yale grad. His wife was a Brown grad, and an Episcopalian. She was a friend and student of Walker Percy. Neither had ever been to Texas.They had a vague idea that it was somewhere beyond the sunset.
For several years a professor from Jerusalem on the Brazos would came to town to lecture on southern writers, Percy being one. I invited them to hear him. They don't mince words and we are too good friends to hold back. They had excellent teachers back east, of course but neither thought the Waco man inferior.
After he returned in later years to lecture on C.S. Lewis, the catholic short story lady from Georgia, and G.K. Chesterton, they convinced me of their sincerity when each confessed not to have heard anyone broader and deeper at their respective alma maters.
It is too bad, if it is true, that for easterners "UT and
certainly Baylor" are off the beaten path of their eyes and lives. But, I refuse to feel sorry for them.
And, I agree with WF.
# posted by 
: 10:27 PM
: 10:27 PM
I agree, too. Baylor has great teachers, in every part of the school. And UT is a great national university.
There is something to a place like Yale Law that I see as a grad-- that there is a circle, almost, of people who also went there that I deal with at a national level. Last month I had a debate at Penn Law, and my opponent and the moderator were both YLS grads, as well. Next week I have a meeting in DC with the head of a large think tank, also a YLS grad, and in a few weeks I will debate Margaret Colgate Love, the former pardon attorney, intellectual powerhouse, and… YLS grad. For such a small school (about 180 grads a year), that's a lot of overlap. I'm not sure what to make of that.
Post a Comment
There is something to a place like Yale Law that I see as a grad-- that there is a circle, almost, of people who also went there that I deal with at a national level. Last month I had a debate at Penn Law, and my opponent and the moderator were both YLS grads, as well. Next week I have a meeting in DC with the head of a large think tank, also a YLS grad, and in a few weeks I will debate Margaret Colgate Love, the former pardon attorney, intellectual powerhouse, and… YLS grad. For such a small school (about 180 grads a year), that's a lot of overlap. I'm not sure what to make of that.
<< Home
