Selectivity is actually the whole point -- an Ivy League degree wouldn't be worth as much if anybody could get one. The ostensible purpose of the four years undergraduates spend here is the development of broad knowledge and skills that will equip them to contribute to the betterment of humanity. Our institution proclaims its mission for undergraduate education here, although I would say there are a lot of tacit assumptions there. The anonymous voice says:
A Brown education is a catalyst for creativity and entrepreneurship. Students at Brown are free to imagine and create their own course of study, integrating their major areas of interest into a broader program of liberal learning. Working with a network of teachers and advisors, students develop important skills of planning, communication, self-advocacy, and resilience. . . .Okay, this is true. We really do care about this. We work hard to help our students learn and reflect and grow. And I hope that graduates do for the most part go on to contribute to the betterment of humanity, although there seem to be an inordinate number of them who aspire to a career in hedge fund management. But there is also an unspoken outcome of a Brown education: the credential. That will get you onto the first rung of the ladder and continue to guild your resume for the rest of your life. That will likely matter more than whatever you actually learned here.
The success of Brown’s graduates in a huge range of fields underscores that our unique approach to education works. Brown students are driven, individual, highly inquisitive scholars and energetic leaders.
So people are legitimately outraged by the revelation that some rich people cheated to get their kids into selective universities. So far no claims have emerged that we were among them, but these few cases of fraud are of little consequence compared to the "legitimate" admissions policy. Children from affluent and wealthy families routinely have a tremendous advantage. Part of it is the resources to prep for the SAT, get your essay expertly ghost written, and build up a resume of the sorts of activities that admissions committees value. There are also preferences given to children of alumni, and donors.
Then there are preferences for "athletes." People think of jock universities with a lot of African American basketball and football players, but the vast majority of college athletes, who get preferential admission even here (though we don't have athletic scholarships per se) engage in sports that nobody pays attention to but mostly rich kids get a chance to do: rowing, tennis, water polo, lacrosse, sailing, golf -- that sort of thing. Preferential admission for these sports is an affirmative action program for affluent white kids.
We do nonetheless manage to have a fairly diverse student body, and they do find a way to admit some students who don't come from privilege. But the chances still skew toward the affluent and wealthy. The cheating is really not the issue.
5 comments:
The success of Brown’s graduates in a huge range of fields underscores that our unique approach to education works. Brown students are driven, individual, highly inquisitive scholars and energetic leaders.
Closer to the truth is you're skimming only the driven, highly inquisitive and energetic and then congratulating yourselves on what a good system you have to produce such winners. That system does nothing for those who cannot afford your bloated tuition or cannot bribe or cheat their way in.
I publish the above only so I can tell you that it is not true. In the first place, we have a need blind admission policy. Once a student is admitted, the family pays what they can afford, which is in many cases nothing. The vast majority of our students have financial aid. It's true that we admit driven, inquisitive energetic people but in fact studies show that it's the students from less privileged backgrounds who benefit the most in terms of their future career. You learn a lot at a good university, it's worth the investment of four years.
I see projection as the single biggest threat facing the human species. People like "Anonymous"--unhappy because he probably perceives himself as uneducated, and perhaps because he was rejected from a college or didn't even apply to one because he didn't think he'd get in--who rants, writing and saying nasty things that aren't even true about other people and institutions, because he can't own his own shit.
It's the guy who tells someone else to get his dog on a leash because the complainer hasn't taken the time to train his own dog, who mirrors his own aggression--
It's the criminal, Shitler, railing about "witch hunts" because he can't own his own degenerate criminality--
It's the professor who tells her doctoral candidate student that she has to "narrow her topic" because the professor can't handle the fact that the student's topic is far more captivating than her own was, and so the student is forced to write some boring, ambiguous crap for her dissertation--
It's the senators, congressmen and lobbyists making up insane theories that global climate change needs more study (because they can't accept their own corrupt campaign-funding system)--
It's the parent of a very Christian-y persuasion who believes, despite untold numbers of studies disproving her fears, that her child is in danger from vaccinations, when the opposite is the truth--
It's the manager on the job who keeps a good employee in his tractor beam, berating her and finding every fault while ignoring all the good stuff, because he's insecure--
I could go on and on. People in general don't know what makes themselves tick, so they fuck with others and shoot off their mouths, because they just can't own their own shit. I don't know what the answer is. But humans, in general, are reckless and irresponsible. The responsible ones can be terrific, but it's a damn shame they're in the minority. That's why the planet would be better off without our species.
Okay, I published the above. For future reference, however, I don't like commenters calling each other out. So I'm not going to allow any personal fights to develop in the future.
Indeed, if there's one thing that's strongly characteristic of conservatives these days, it's projection.
This isn't over. While we focus on Hollywood stars and about 50 other rich people, the system itself will be under the microscope.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-15/admissions-cheating-scandal-colleges-need-more-fraud-safeguards
For one thing, if even a handful of misguided parents are willing to pay enormous bribes and engage in reckless dishonesty to get their children into elite schools, you have to wonder about the value society as a whole attaches to an elite-school education. Indeed, much of this week’s commentary discusses the great lengths many law-abiding parents go to in gaming the college-admissions system.
Yet one shouldn’t lose sight of a hard distinction — between, on the one hand, the legitimate efforts of colleges and parents to advance their interests and, on the other, outright criminality and the failure of basic management standards.
Post a Comment