The Conundrum of Education
On MSNBC this morning, the topic of the inequity of education, especially in regard to the admission standards to Ivy League universities, was on full display. To begin with, they showed data from public universities (think University of Michigan or UCLA), what they call “Second Tier” universities (Oh, say like Vanderbilt or Washington University) and Ivy League or Elite universities (the obvious 8 plus a few extras like Stanford, Duke, University of Chicago and M.I.T.). The difference between those three cohorts showed an interesting distinction. While the first two categories are fairly similar in being relatively blind to wealth and socioeconomic status, they both kicked up advantage at the furthest reaches of wealth and privilege. But the Elite universities were outrageously different in that they showed a marked advantage shown to wealth and deeply imbedded privilege all the way along the wealth spectrum and still with the even greater kick up in the highest arenas of wealth and privilege. One has to wonder what’s up with that. I would love to see those stats shown broken down by all twelve of the Elite schools and somehow suspect that my Alma Mater, Cornell, is far less elitist given its conjoined status as both an endowed and land-grant (state supported) university. Nevertheless, being a product of one of the Elite schools forces me to explore that elitism and how that does or does not offend my personal liberal sensibilities. In the same way that we all say we are not elitist or racist, we are probably a little of both and have lots of reasons for contrition.
But should we feel the need for contrition around something so fundamental and so responsible for the continuity of human advancement as education represents? The answer is probably both a yes and a no, and like most things in life, it is that subtly that defines the core of most interesting ethical dilemmas. I would start by saying that most (but clearly, not all) choices should be judges on an ethical scale only once someone reaches an age of majority. It is too variable and too fussy to try to define exactly when a person, in their development, becomes mostly responsible for their own decisions. So much of that is specific to individuals and their family upbringing. Some are cast adrift and on their own to establish the fiber of their character from a young age, and yet others are actively forced to comply or familialy cajoled to conform to standards of the family.
My mother went to Cornell and graduated as a member of the Class of ‘37. She had no family history of higher education, being a first generation American, and chose Cornell completely on her own since she lived six miles away from the place and it was actually the cheapest alternative to higher education for her since the School of Home Economics there (now called Human Ecology) was a state school that pretty much automatically insured her admission and gave her the affordability to pay her own way through with literally no parental support. While I do not suspect that my grandfather challenged her decisions, I know he didn’t fully understand it or necessarily encourage it. But she went and it formed the foundation of her life and was instrumental in guiding her to a path of humanitarian developmental work ranging from the New York State Welfare Department to the Rockefeller Foundation, and the the initial women’s Job Corps center and ultimately the United Nations as its leading “home economist”. Hers was clearly a case of bootstrapped uplifting via education and a strong need to use that advantage for the betterment of humanity. In many ways, her educational experience through an Elite institution may be one the best examples of the exception proving the rule. That last bit is because of the fact that her going to Cornell was the reason I went to Cornell, my children all went to Cornell, two of them married Cornellians and the third married someone who lived near Cornell when he was spending time up near Cornell, and finally, why two of my sister’s four children graduated from Cornell, all dispute none of us descendants grew up only six miles from Cornell as she had, nor dis any of us take advantage of the land-grant college tuition or socially-oriented education given there.
When I made the decision to go to Cornell, I had no choice. Like the total idiot I was at 17 (only slightly less of an idiot than I am now, I suppose), I only applied to Yale, Stanford and Cornell. In other words, I was oblivious to the realities of the world. Let’s do the math. In 1971 there were 207 million people in the United States. There were about 2,872,000 high school graduates that year and 53.4% or 1,535,000 went on to college of some sort. My estimate of the Elite schools’ matriculation numbers was something like 22,000, which means that only 1.43% of the college-going student body went to and presumably got into these Elite institutions. I know for a fact that my mother had never donated a dime to Cornell, so whatever non-academic advantage I had for getting into Cornell, it was only due to pure legacy issues, which at most could have doubled my odds of getting in. That means I was still within the 3% likelihood zone. If I goose that by 2% for what I will call the uniqueness factor of applying from an American High School in Rome, Italy versus Long Island, That still means I had at best a one in twenty chance3 of acceptance. I had no published papers or patents to my credit, I was just a regular high school student who happened to attend overseas and didn’t even have any Advanced Placement credits since those didn’t exist overseas to my knowledge. In other words, i was a genuine idiot for thinking I would surely get into one of those Elite schools, but low and behold, I got lucky and I did. I suspect that applying to engineering helped my case since in 1971 only baby-killing, pro-Nixon types wanted to go into engineering. I was oblivious but lucky.
They say Cornell is the easiest Ivy to get into, but the hardest to stay in, which is to say the curriculum is rigorous and no-nonsense. I don’t know how provable that is, but I never got close to getting bounced out, so I assume I was up to the challenge though I would hardly say that I was Phi Beta Kappa material. I did well enough to get into the Cornell Business School program on graduation though I feel that the real competition in my grade had been siphoned off to Med School, Law School and Grad School. The talent pool and the odds of admission to Cornell Business School was nowhere near as difficult as undergraduate admission.
All three of my kids got into Cornell, but I was a major donor by then and I am certain it gave them a leg up even though on paper they were each in the grade and test zone of the admitted applicant pool. Do I feel that what I did in giving them an educational edge was ethically acceptable? I don’t know. Two of them graduated and have now married fellow Cornellians. I feel that none of us (including me) have done with our educations what my mother did with hers to better the world, but I do feel we have each added value to the overall intelligence of the overall population and that is not all bad. Would others have done more? Who is to say? I’m not sure I feel that generally giving more economic opportunity to another person can or should be the measure of a better use of that space in the Elite school roster. I also know from watching my two grandkids that the next generation is benefiting psychically by having dual-Ivy parents. They are likely to achieve more and go further educationally because of it and again, that may be a difference supporting their acceptance albeit a long term reason for their privilege and advantage.
I am back to the conundrum of education. I want as many people as possible to get a good education. I feel it makes the world a better place. But I also know that sometimes it is nothing more than a ticket to the show and what any student does with his or her education is the real test of the value of that education. It is at best a law of large numbers game and while I would agree with ending legacy admissions (no matter how it levels the playing field on my grandkids) is good and even that affirmative action is a good program that I support, though I prefer socioeconomic standards to race or gender standards. Let’s just do what is needed to give good educational opportunities to all who want them.