The Atlantic How College Became a Ruthless Competition ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From a parent whose nerdy DC never fit in a public high school and who is finding a tough very high level college is a very good fit, these places are not the terrible places described in this article. The geeks can have a place to do what they do and not be crapped on.

I don’t understand this argument. Most public schools in the DMV have geek students who can hang out with each other and geek out. It wasn’t the case when I was growing up and geeks got crapped on. Now they have their people in good public schools.

There are entire high level colleges chock full of supernerds. These are fantastic places for very academically inclined students to be and I see no problem with kids wanting to go to them. Not talking about a few random kids in high school. An entire large institution devoted to high level scholarship is not a terrible thing in theory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From a parent whose nerdy DC never fit in a public high school and who is finding a tough very high level college is a very good fit, these places are not the terrible places described in this article. The geeks can have a place to do what they do and not be crapped on.

I don’t understand this argument. Most public schools in the DMV have geek students who can hang out with each other and geek out. It wasn’t the case when I was growing up and geeks got crapped on. Now they have their people in good public schools.

There are entire high level colleges chock full of supernerds. These are fantastic places for very academically inclined students to be and I see no problem with kids wanting to go to them. Not talking about a few random kids in high school. An entire large institution devoted to high level scholarship is not a terrible thing in theory.

I don’t think anyone-including the author-is arguing against having excellent colleges or academically inclined institutions? I think one argument is that not every nerdy and smart person is STEM inclined or needs to go to a top 10 school. I have one kid who is very nerdy but her interests and strengths are in the humanities and writing. We need smarty pants in non-STEM/finance fields as well. The author also points out that these schools are elitist (not because they want smart people) but because many of their students come from very selective pricey prep schools, because legacy is still a thing. I don’t understand the parents in here (and the AAP forum) who think any criticism of current faulty systems is a judgement/backlash on the gifted folks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the author, a Yale/Oxford/Yale Law graduate who is a law professor at Yale, opines on the evils of elite university culture. “Meritocracy is a menace" Talk about embarassing hypocrisy. The evils of SATs, GPAs to sort applications. Yet he offers no insight into what would be a better way. Talk about a long article filled with empty calories so he can hear himself speak...lightweight.

Yes, it seems to be the fashion of the woke these days. They went to elite schools and made their wealth, and now they come out tell you their millionaire's life is overrated, don't try to live like them and you should be happy at where you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the author, a Yale/Oxford/Yale Law graduate who is a law professor at Yale, opines on the evils of elite university culture. “Meritocracy is a menace" Talk about embarassing hypocrisy. The evils of SATs, GPAs to sort applications. Yet he offers no insight into what would be a better way. Talk about a long article filled with empty calories so he can hear himself speak...lightweight.

Yes, it seems to be the fashion of the woke these days. They went to elite schools and made their wealth, and now they come out tell you their millionaire's life is overrated, don't try to live like them and you should be happy at where you are.

As opposed to conservatives who think no one needs an education because the stupid are easier to deceive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the author, a Yale/Oxford/Yale Law graduate who is a law professor at Yale, opines on the evils of elite university culture. “Meritocracy is a menace" Talk about embarassing hypocrisy. The evils of SATs, GPAs to sort applications. Yet he offers no insight into what would be a better way. Talk about a long article filled with empty calories so he can hear himself speak...lightweight.

Yes, it seems to be the fashion of the woke these days. They went to elite schools and made their wealth, and now they come out tell you their millionaire's life is overrated, don't try to live like them and you should be happy at where you are.

As opposed to conservatives who think no one needs an education because the stupid are easier to deceive.

Education doesn't raise your IQ. And nothing I learned in college or law school seems to have changed how my law school classmates react to manipulative politicians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From a parent whose nerdy DC never fit in a public high school and who is finding a tough very high level college is a very good fit, these places are not the terrible places described in this article. The geeks can have a place to do what they do and not be crapped on.

I don’t understand this argument. Most public schools in the DMV have geek students who can hang out with each other and geek out. It wasn’t the case when I was growing up and geeks got crapped on. Now they have their people in good public schools.

There are entire high level colleges chock full of supernerds. These are fantastic places for very academically inclined students to be and I see no problem with kids wanting to go to them. Not talking about a few random kids in high school. An entire large institution devoted to high level scholarship is not a terrible thing in theory.

I don’t think anyone-including the author-is arguing against having excellent colleges or academically inclined institutions? I think one argument is that not every nerdy and smart person is STEM inclined or needs to go to a top 10 school. I have one kid who is very nerdy but her interests and strengths are in the humanities and writing. We need smarty pants in non-STEM/finance fields as well. The author also points out that these schools are elitist (not because they want smart people) but because many of their students come from very selective pricey prep schools, because legacy is still a thing. I don’t understand the parents in here (and the AAP forum) who think any criticism of current faulty systems is a judgement/backlash on the gifted folks.

What is this author suggesting we do? I can only say that DC is so fortunate to finally be in an environment so well suited to DC and is thriving. Not from an elite fancy prep school or a rich connected family or anything like that. Just academically obsessive and from what I can tell is surrounded by a lot of the same.

Sure there are students from elite rich families but there is a lot more to these places as best I can tell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love the section about halfway down that starts with this: “The turn away from the humanities is a sign of competitive schooling’s most far-reaching effect: It perverts our culture’s understanding of what education is, and makes us forget that schooling has value beyond status seeking.”

How many threads on DCUM include assertions from parents that a degree in anything other than business or STEM is useless? That they expect a return on their investment in their child’s education? That they would not *allow* their child to study what interests them? [/quote

Can you blame parents, though? At $80k a year, you are looking for a ROI. $320k (plus grad school for many students) is not about status seeking. The costs of post secondary needs revisiting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the author, a Yale/Oxford/Yale Law graduate who is a law professor at Yale, opines on the evils of elite university culture. “Meritocracy is a menace" Talk about embarassing hypocrisy. The evils of SATs, GPAs to sort applications. Yet he offers no insight into what would be a better way. Talk about a long article filled with empty calories so he can hear himself speak...lightweight.

Person, did you actually read the story? He does offer insight into a better way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Focusing intensely on career and future wages is because of the insane price of college these days. If you pay full price, 80k for 4 years, you don’t have the luxury of saying I went to college to enrich my mind. You need a high paying job to justify your parents having spent over $300,000 for college for only one child. For 3 kids, you can end up spending close to $1 million. How can you not be career focused with these kinds of costs. Canada and Europe have figured it out much better than the US in my opinion. Maybe Asia too although HS stress in Asia is just too much

+1 parents are expected to save from the time their kid is a fetus or risk the kid having lifetime of crushing debt, yet we’re supposed to pretend that salary isn’t an outcome that matters

I've been saving since my kids were born to save them from a lifetime of crushing debt precisely so that the salary they make after college doesn't matter! I want them to pursue what interests them and figure out to make lives for themselves. I don't expect some financial return on the investment.

How can it not matter? It only matters if your child has a trust fund! If your theory is that your college graduate child doesn't care if he eats steak or ramen, shares an apartment with three other people or lives in his own house, travels by greyhound or by first class, you're wrong. Salary matters for quality of life. Is your child blind to that reality?

The options aren’t limited to big salary or no salary. I want my kids to go to college and pursue the career paths that interest them, which means I don’t care if they choose paths that result in high salaries. I don’t expect them to make a lot of money to justify the cost of college.

One of my kids thinks he wants to major in history and become a teacher; if that’s what will make him happy, I’m happy for him to pursue that path. He can have a happy, fulfilling life on a teacher’s salary. That’s what matters to me.

That sounds all well and good but what about your future grandchildren? Unless you have generational wealth to pass down, if your child found a career path they love but at a low salary (let’s go with teacher) how could they do the same with THEIR kids? Would they be able to save enough to afford their children the same opportunities of graduating college debt free and they can choose a career path they love instead of one resulting in higher salaries. Are you okay with your kid needing to make major sacrifices in their future adult lives? What if they aren’t able to save enough for their children’s education? Are you okay with your grandchildren going into debt for college?

You are not responsible for your GRANDCHILDREN's quality of life. Let go of the savior image. Do your best to provide for the children you birthed. Then have faith in them to do the same. And have faith in your grandchildren to make your own way.

Such a warped concept that you have to plan for financing two generations ahead. Guess what. Lots of two teacher families have wonderful lives. THEY are investing in the next generation of citizens. Their schedules are family friendly. The teachers I know have a very nice qualitly of life.

You really need some perspective.

Never said to finance two generations. It is our responsibility to raise kids who will also be able to provide for THEIR children. I want to put MY kids in a good position so they can in turn put THEIR kids in a good position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the author, a Yale/Oxford/Yale Law graduate who is a law professor at Yale, opines on the evils of elite university culture. “Meritocracy is a menace" Talk about embarassing hypocrisy. The evils of SATs, GPAs to sort applications. Yet he offers no insight into what would be a better way. Talk about a long article filled with empty calories so he can hear himself speak...lightweight.

Person, did you actually read the story? He does offer insight into a better way.

DP. His solution is dependent on the stakeholders who benefits from the current system (school administrators, boards, and donors, primarily) voluntarily deciding to give up the privileges afforded to them by the current system. The only group he doesn't suggest act against their own interest (in the short term at least) is professors such as himself. I am not sure what his exact role is at Yale, but there is no educational institution more emblematic of the system he is railing against than Yale, yet I don't notice him advocating for his colleagues to give up their spots there and migrate to Seattle University or elsewhere. It is also laughable to suggest that th government can fix this problem by threatening to take away tax exemptions unless schools expand and become more diverse - there is zero political will to do that. The government is completely hamstrung from removing tax exemptions even for violations of the existing rules, such as political activism by certain churches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And there is nothing wrong with trade school.

Exactly. This is where we went wrong -- when policymakers decided that not going to college was shameful. Meanwhile, many necessary, well-paying, productive professions go begging for workers, while college grads pay off loans for college degrees that added little, if anything, to their employability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because somewhere along the way a ticket to an elite college also became, in the eyes of parents of privilege, an entitlement to an entire life of privilege for their (aided and abetted by parental wealth).

Because if you went to Princeton or Harvard in the 1950s it was something different?

Very different. Was there a single female at Princeton the 50s?

The point is that the idea that this is some new development is ridiculous. If anything it was even worse in the past when only wealthy white males benefitted from elite colleges. I fail to see how the original sentence makes any sense.

The ticket to the elite college used to be given to you when you were born into the right family. It was just a part of the entitlement to an entire life of privilege given to people in that class. Only relatively recently, has the "elite college" portion been opened to those who were not born elite. The "near elite" see getting their kid into an Ivy as the fulfillment of all of their elite fantasies.

This has been a chicken or the egg exercise all along. Were the colleges elite because that's where kids who were born elite went to school, or did they produce "elite" graduates? It will remain to be seen if these colleges retain their allure when the student body is no longer made up of kids who were already there and is full of smart kids with no connections who may or not make something of themselves with their Ivy degree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the author, a Yale/Oxford/Yale Law graduate who is a law professor at Yale, opines on the evils of elite university culture. “Meritocracy is a menace" Talk about embarassing hypocrisy. The evils of SATs, GPAs to sort applications. Yet he offers no insight into what would be a better way. Talk about a long article filled with empty calories so he can hear himself speak...lightweight.

Person, did you actually read the story? He does offer insight into a better way.

DP. His solution is dependent on the stakeholders who benefits from the current system (school administrators, boards, and donors, primarily) voluntarily deciding to give up the privileges afforded to them by the current system. The only group he doesn't suggest act against their own interest (in the short term at least) is professors such as himself. I am not sure what his exact role is at Yale, but there is no educational institution more emblematic of the system he is railing against than Yale, yet I don't notice him advocating for his colleagues to give up their spots there and migrate to Seattle University or elsewhere. It is also laughable to suggest that th government can fix this problem by threatening to take away tax exemptions unless schools expand and become more diverse - there is zero political will to do that. The government is completely hamstrung from removing tax exemptions even for violations of the existing rules, such as political activism by certain churches.

There is no institution that is more keyed to preserving the privileges of the privileged and anti-diversity than tenure.

[Anonymous]

Just not true. In science anyway, you have to show that you can get grants and publish in peer-reviewed journals. It is a VERY pure meritocracy.

You cannot buy tenure due to your parent's wealth or connections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a by-product of all American capitalism and materialism. China and India are two other major countries that share this elitism with the U.S. Europe has long moved away from the elitist education mechanism, there are schools that you attend based on the craft you to follow, although they do have rankings the pressure to chase them is somewhat muted compared to the U.S in most of Western Europe today, they do not share the same chasing the American dream of living large in McMansions with our boats, expensive cars, country club memberships, and school prestige. American society has degenerated, we need to go back to implementing more social and economic equity, that the progressive left has been talking about for too long.

This is just flat false. Europe is more class driven than US. They talk a good game but they live in a rigid system where there is little movement between classes. That is reinforced as early as elementary school. Europe is being left in the dust. They all feel it there now as they look at COVID and vaccines and see the US, UK, and China far far ahead of them.

As an example of this, I will always remember this story because it is nuts to me. 600 years of the same families in Italy being rich.
https://qz.com/694340/the-richest-families-in-florence-in-1427-are-still-the-richest-families-in-florence/

Tax differences with the US are important. Typically low property and estate taxes in Europe. This is why elimination of the estate tax in the US is very, very bad.

If you think the estate tax is what makes the difference, you need to do even just a little bit of research into the subject. The article mentions that the same is true of England, and England has had ruinous estate taxes (to varying degrees) for over a century. In 1969, the inheritance tax rate was 85%.