It is disappointing and more than a little disturbing to see a professor write with such little regard for his opposition but also for the principles of reason he lauds so misleadingly in his article.

To his opposition he should at least show the courtesy of accurate representation. The deemed emphasis on elite universities is entirely imagined, and moreover, it is not argued that elite universities should admit every needy undergraduate that exists.

Indeed, he seems very misinformed on just what it is that is supposed to make these institutions elite. In this article, it seems that they are elite because they charge more tuition. However, what is intended to make them elite is that they have the highest standards and admit the very best students

This — and not the straw man excuse offered by the author — is why elite universities should offer scholarships and other supports for needy students. Even though they have had to cope with disadvantages, students who are very needy can be as qualified as students who are very rich.

The possibility that universities might be concerned about the academic capabilities of their new students, and that they might operate using some sort of merit-based screening, does not appear to occur to the author. This lapse is startling. Is he not aware of the SATs and other evaluation mechanisms? Is he not aware of the admissions process at his own institution?

Instead, we are treated to the ridiculous parody of an argument, to the effect that “The elite status of an institution comes from its ability to spend more money than institutions deemed ‘non-elite’"” and that the “amenities define elite status for undergraduates.”

Even were the poor subsidized, argues the author, “that doesn’t really work” because if the poor students are admitted, then some qualified students from higher income groups would be pushed out. “There are not enough spots in what we call elite institutions to accommodate all the deserving students of all income levels.”

One wonders where he dug up this ridiculous bit of logic. Were selection performed based solely on merit, then the number of qualified students equals the number of spaces, since if there are x number of spaces, then to ‘qualify’ is by definition to be in the top x number of students.

The author’s definition of ‘qualified’ appears to be somewhat different, however. Exactly what it is, he doesn’t tell us, but it appears to be some selection process that excludes poor people, so he can make up the fantasy of evicting qualified higher income students were those poor students admitted.

While it is true that for each poor student admitted a richer student much instead attend some other institution, it is a fallacy to say that this richer student was qualified. Only if you suppose that academic ability plays no part in the selection — the absurd premise underlying the entire article — does the statement become true.

The fact is, when elite institutions preferentially admit the rich, they fail not only society but themselves as well. To spend additional money providing preferential treatment to people who are already wealthy is a poor use of community resources. And it robs the institutions of students worthy of their status.

Perhaps the author should spend some time reflecting on the purpose of academic institutions, rather than wasting his effort defending the rich from imagined slights and unfair treatment from an ungrateful society.

Stephen Downes, at 7:05 am EST on December 12, 2006

In response to Joe’s comment, I would not want to be that admissions officer, but I would also not want to be one of those students applying to U of M. This is what it’s come down to....the term our family prefers is a crapshoot. But by throwing race into a mix of identical applicatants, one will get in based on the color of his/her skin. As my own daughter awaits word on her apps, I wish there was a better way for all of these kids. I don’t know if she would feel any less crushed if she did not get in because she was white, or that the other applicant got in bc they were black or latino. For the white child that is like so many others at the top of the heap, it has truly become a ‘crapshoot’. Even at the state schools, which is scary. Maybe they should all apply w/only a number for i.d. purposes, and looked at solely in the context of how well they performed at their school compared with all of the students there. But then, would adcoms be able to determine race based on the school attended? Oh, it will never end!

jmd, at 10:20 am EST on December 12, 2006

What makes them elite

The author of the article misses an important factor that makes some colleges and universities elite. Certainly they are academically strong, have distinguished faculties, large endowments, famous alumni and academically talented applicant pools.

But in addition, these schools recruit the children of the rich and famous. People want their children to go to school with society’s elite. They are willing to shell out close to $200,000 for a child’s college education because they think it will help their child’s future if he is the fraternity brother of the son of the CEO of a Fortune 500 company or the daughter of the President of the United States.

What do you think that they are thinking about when they start having anxiety fits over their children’s grades or strategizing their extra-curriculars? How many are dreaming of their kids going to Harvard for the opportunity to compete in a math class with a gold medalist in the International Math Olympiad from Hong Kong or the son of a first generation Asian student with a 1600 SAT.

A lot of the attraction of the Ivy League schools is that it confers social status on its attenders and graduates. Such status enhances career opportunities, financial success and marriage prospects. People want their children to succeed and they are willing to pay a great deal of money to go to schools which they believe (probably correctly) are most likely to help them do that.

Jonathan Cohen, Mathematics professor at DePaul University, at 10:20 am EST on December 12, 2006

Admission to “Elite....”

I think Shakespeare had a line for all of the above. But I’ll let you peruse the writings of this uneducated slob with no elite background, who never had any broadening European after school travel. And, who, for all practical purposes, left little in the way of resumes, applications, etc. I think you get the idea.Jim Blyler, Franklin, NC (another “little backwater town” with little to say for it academically but that it’s a great place to live)

Jim Blyler, Director at SEEdSAM, at 11:55 am EST on December 12, 2006

Talk about false assumptions

The good professor makes a whopper of an assumption, a false on at that, when he states that instutitions of higher education, public and private, are “heavily subsidized” by taxpayers. That may have been true for many public universities 25 years ago (and a handful of private ones), but I doubt that he could find any IHE’s other than the service academies whose operating budgets were not heavily dependent on student tuition, not state or federal funding.

Ken Wetstein, at 2:15 pm EST on December 12, 2006

“The Real Failure of Critical Thinking”

The real failure of Critical Thinking is the belief of leaders of public research universities that their institutions have the right to become as selective in undergraduate admissions as their markets allow!

Joseph C. Burke, Director Higher Education Program at Rockefeller Institute of Government, at 5:20 pm EST on December 12, 2006

People make the mistake that elite colleges want to enroll low incomes and minorities for the public good. No, they enroll these folks for various other reasons — guilt, political correctness, competitive diversity and to add a little reality to the campus. They are elite because they can attract around 50% of their students to pay an exorbitant full price. Low income students don’t want to go there because of some great education — no, in many cases the elites are actually cheaper than the state flagship schools. A low income student with 1350 sat’s will get a much better deal at Penn or Swat than at Penn State. He’ll save 10 to 15 grand over 4 years — guaranteed.

I am always suspicious of well off academic types writing about low income students. It’s very difficult to get the right perspective.

Owen, at 9:45 pm EST on December 12, 2006

Subsidized higher education

Well, what fun!

Nothing gets our academic enthusiasm better engaged than a discussion about elites and their behavior. We’re not very good at defining elites, of course, so much of the commentary is probably right given one definition of elite or another.

The one point I’d like to emphasize, however, is that all elite universities, public or private and however their elite status is defined, are indeed heavily subsidized by the public. While the public no longer subsidizes higher education, and particularly public higher education, at as high a percentage of total institutional funding as they used to do or we wish they would do, nonetheless, all of these institutions have tax breaks, they all get public funding at some level, they all get research grants and contracts from tax based sources, they all avoid local property taxes, they all have endowments and gifts that receive tax benefits, and they all have students with government subsidized funding to pay some parts of the tuition and fees. Some have more public money than others, but few could survive without the public funding that is direct in the form of payments or indirect in the form of tax exemptions.

Yes, many universities and colleges pay merit aid. They also give preferences to legacies, to athletes, and a host of other preferred groups. Most of the argument about admissions is about which group deserves the most preference, not about whether preferences are a good thing. We think the preference is a good thing when we approve of it. We think it’s a bad thing when we disapprove of it. Over time, we academics and our public supporters have changed our opinions about which preferences we like and which ones we dislike. Often these changes represent progress, but not always.

In the end, of course, the great strength of American higher education is its tremendous range of institutions which offer endless variety of opportunities and server their students exceptionally well. It is this variety that we should celebrate and encourage, and it is efforts to homogenize these institutions to conform to some simple norm that we should resist.

John Lombardi, at 11:50 am EST on December 13, 2006

The Failure of Critical Thinking

I think most of John Lombardi’s response makes good sense. However, I think he still begs the question of the recent study on the high percentage of financial aid from flagship state universities that is devoted to merit aid — as distinguished from need-based financial aid. That’s not even a question about who among applicants is offered admission — but rather, who among admittees can then afford to attend.

The New York Times this week has featured an article and interviews about the student price at a private (sic?) (independent) college versus a public one. If one follows John Lombardi’s critical thinking, why should state flagship universities receive subsidies that drive their price down — and often to accomodate students from very prosperous families? Need-based aid is not merely another category among the various groups seeking preference. To say that it is is, in my opinion, to commit the reductionist fallacy — not critical thinking.

Prof John Thelin, Professor at University of Kentucky, at 2:45 pm EST on December 14, 2006

Agreed

Prof John has a very valid point. Elite universities are often identified as such simply on the basis of economics. Case in point: one university received 20,000 applications for a freshman class of 2,000 while another university receives only 10,000 applications for the same number of freshmen. The accept rate for each college is vastly different, but the outcome, to enroll 2,000 new freshmen, is the same. So naturally the university with fewer applications will be somewhat less selective. I contend that if the university with 20,000 applications suddenly found themselves with only 6,000 applications on hand, their selection criteria would suffer greatly. It is much ado about the law of supply and demand, not about how well English 101 is taught at either university. I have seen open enrollment universities turn out some of the most successful graduates, while so called “elite” universities graduates suffer in the job market. Go figure.

Martin, at 2:30 pm EST on December 15, 2006