Analysis Of Daniel Golden 's The Price Of Admission

I agree that this argument is strong, however, the assertion was that his family influence and wealth was the only way that he got into these prestigious schools, which is incorrect. Those are ONLY a few of the variables that garnered him admission.

Through this recent recession the gap for financial aid has become increasingly large due to the fact that colleges are basing some of their applications by their financial situation. This in turn creates widening on lower to middle class families who cannot send their children to school because the cost are too great to bear with large amounts of financial aid. The wealthy students are not only being accepted to these pricy private universities but are being given grant and aid so that they can make it through. The poorer students are not even given the chance to attend those school not because of their brain but because of their lack of funding. In today’s society were the upper class has become very distant to the middle and

Andrew Simmons published his article for The Atlantic, “The Danger of Telling Poor Kids that College is the Key to Social Mobility” on January 16, 2014, which raises his concerns that higher education is only being promoted as an opportunity to increase their economic status, when it should be an opportunity to experience an education (Simmons). Through the use of students such as Isabella, Simmons disagrees with the way students now look at higher education and blames the educators through the students’ lives for this view. Instead, Simmons views education as an intellectual opportunity rather than a way to elevate ones economic class which is all people see when they see “higher education.” He believes that education, ambition and work ethic is how you have a satisfying life, not with how much you make. He makes the point that when economics becomes the main goal of education it’s all children begin to think about and they might not pursue something that they are truly passionate about or what they want to learn about, which then does not create an intellectually awakening experience (Simmons).

His writing proves effective since many including myself felt moved by his article. The writers produced many important steps to abolishing Ivy League schools and creating equality. Glenn provides fresh information to an over talked about topic. When reading the article, many become shocked with the percentages Mr. Reynolds provides. At first, many become hesitant that elite universities cause problems of inequality, but the credible author proves his point with clear evidence. Staying on topic, providing surveys, and stating clear realistic ideas on how to solve the problem, provides the key to success on how to win an

When people hear the term “Ivy League school”, they oftentimes think of a prestigious, high ranked college where extremely intelligent, well-rounded individuals go to shape themselves into an efficient member of society. However, a piece published by William Deresiewicz called “Don’t Send Your Kids to the Ivy League” does exactly the opposite, as Deresiewicz, a former 8 year Yale professor, criticizes Ivy League schools for being too constricting and not allowing their students to be themselves and come out to be a well-rounded efficient member of society. Deresiewicz is an award winning essayist and critic, as well as a frequent college speaker, and the best selling author of the 2014 novel “Excellent Sheep,” which also criticizes the roles of major Ivy League schools relating to American society. The main theme of “Don’t Send Your Kids to the Ivy League” is to convey the message to parents that contrary to popular belief, Ivy League schools do not always create perfect, well rounded individuals, and Deresiewicz uses his years of experience at Yale and the years he attended Columbia to back up his claims that sending away your kids to the Ivy League is not always the best choice.

Charles Murray’s essay proposes that American colleges are being flooded with individuals who are either unprepared for higher education or who are simply forced into attending college and can’t succeed because of the lack of certain innate abilities. Murray’s essay goes on to take issue with the idea that the pursuit of a traditional college education is somehow strategically creating a separation of the American class system. While Murray makes many salient points with regards to America’s obsession with college education as a standard into a class of the intellectual elite, the essay fails to take into consideration the various motivators that can lead to student success, despite

Ever since a young age, the youth of the United States are taught that they must strive to be the best they can be. This would ultimately result in one possessing a competitive edge, once one enters the selection process of joining one of many higher institutions of education or the job market. In the essays “Project Classroom Makeover,” “Biographies of Hegemony,” and “Rent Seeking and the Making of an Unequal Society,” respectfully by, Cathy Davidson, Karen Ho, and Joseph Stiglitz, the topic of competitive behaviors and practices is widely addressed and heavily criticized. Education is competitive, yet bias. Institutions of higher education value students based irrelevant factors, something which is unacceptable in the modern, digital age. This heavily impacts the selection process of candidates, leading the system to favor unqualified individuals. Prevalent business superpowers, many residing in Wall Street, pick low hanging fruit. In other words, these firms take very minimal effort to choose candidates in positions that are extremely competitive and valuable. They recruit individuals who graduate from top schools and have no other realistic edge for the company, aside from namesake. Woven into these practices, many examples of uncompetitive behavior arise as well from other factors of the system. In this essay, I argue that competitive and uncompetitive behaviors have molded modern America, with massive organizations and authorities playing into these behaviors from all

Black alumni are enthused to see increasing numbers of Black students at elite schools such as Harvard and Yale, but raises the question of what type of Black students are getting in (Rimer & Arenson, 2004). African immigrants

From a young age, accomplishment is associated first with monetary gain and then with going to a good college. While my peers and I are currently fixated on the latter, Outliers has shown us there is no need to be. With Nobel prize winners coming from anywhere from MIT to Holy Cross and Stanford to Rollins (Gladwell, 81-82), success is not determined by the higher learning institution one chooses to go to, although it certainly does not hurt to attend a prestigious one. As I look to the application process I am deterred by many things that should send me towards success. Being a Caucasian, upper-middle class citizen, I am perhaps the most replaceable student in the world with thousands just like me, hoping for the same chance I look forward too. However, I feel it is what I have done in the summers that will set me apart. Karl Alexander realized that privileged students tend to ‘outlearn’ underprivileged children over the summer, something I am beginning to see more clearly. This past summer, I was fortunate enough to be part of the 6-percent accepted to the Stanford Pre-Collegiate Summer Institutes for Business and Entrepreneurship. It took only a few days to realize that I was the only true ‘white kid’. With the majority coming from Asian descent, the only other kid at the camp who may have been Caucasian came from a Panamanian family. As I noticed this, I realized

Although it seems as if the founding of Harvard and other colleges during the Colonial Era were beneficial to the larger society, it seems as if these colleges contributed to higher education in the United States manifesting as a private good. Despite the number of opportunities Harvard and other colonial colleges had on American society, these institutions further divided the elite from the rest of society, since all students came from wealthy families. In fact, soon after the founding of Harvard and other colonial colleges, being educated was tantamount to being elite (Marine, 2017). Furthermore, acceptance into these institutions was limited to White men, who were required to have prior knowledge of both Latin and Greek (Bastedo et al, 2016).

The general argument made by author Kansas City Star in their work, Should colleges rethink quest for superkids? Is that kind and considerate kids are not getting accepted to Ivy league colleges in favor of super driven kids. More specifically Kansas City Star, argues that kids with average GPAs but do lots of charity work or care for their family by having multiple jobs or caring for a sick relative. These kids are doing charity work out of their hearts no because it looks good on a college application. They write, “they’re looking at the whole person, not just grades and after school activities.” In this passage, Kansas City Star is suggesting that elite colleges should and maybe will take kindness and other traits like this into consideration.

Jerome Karabel has explored many areas of the college admissions process and is unhappy with his findings. In his text, “The Battle Over Merit”, Karabel concludes that the college admissions process has to be updated, so that everyone gets a fair and equal chance to get into these institutions. He includes a substantial argument of how college admissions have evolved and has been initially favoring one social group. This justification shows the concept of privilege and a need for inclusion. Karabel believes that race shouldn 't be a factor of change, but socio-economic backgrounds should be a way for students to get help and get into these schools, because they need it the most. He also brings up the idea of power and politics and that the

Although there is trust between Wall Street and their “atomic family” Harvard and Princeton, Wall Street’s “extended family” such as Yale and the University of Pennsylvania do not receive the same level of trust and fairness. Since Wall Streeters tend to favor Harvard and Princeton when recruiting, they really only give Harvard and Princeton graduates the opportunity to succeed in investment banking. By doing so Wall Streeters treat their “extended families” from other schools unfairly. This is evident when Ho writes, “investment banking recruiters at Princeton and Harvard explicitly express how the do not care if undergraduates are trained in finance because a skilled background… [it’s] not really what they are looking for” (186); what they are looking for is the Harvard or Princeton degree they will graduate with. Whereas, there could be plenty of skillful undergraduates at other Ivy League schools such as Yale; but those

As a high school senior, the pressure to pick the school that will provide me with both a good social and academic experience is on. For someone like me, I would be content with going to a good state school to save money. But for other students, Ivy League is the only option. These same students and their parents strongly believe that an Ivy League education is the principal to the finest opportunities in life. William Deresiewicz claims they do not give a remarkable social experience nor do they allow room for students to think themselves. In his article, “ Don’t Send Your Kids to the Ivy Leagues”, he uses his status and personal anecdotes to persuade the reader of just that.

Upon doing research on Charles Murray it was discovered that he went to Harvard, which may make one doubt the validity of his argument. Another faulty is that a man who went to such a prestigious school will have a different expectation than someone who went to the University of New Hampshire for example. Of course he doesn’t think college is for everyone because not everyone may be able to make it through a college as vigorous as Harvard. Anyone that attends Harvard has some amount of talent but “anything below an IQ of 110 is problematic…if you want to do well [in college], you should have an IQ of 115 or higher” (Kirszner, Mandell 677). By making this statement, one can doubt his arguments validity; he may be making too high of an expectation for the “qualifying” student academically college abled and underestimating the “unqualified” college student that should try two years of vocational school before attempting a four year college. Millar, who did not attend an Ivy League school like Murray, and did an exceptionally well job of convincing her readers by stating facts with opinions. If a woman who went to UCLA can do that, than Murray may be overestimating college and adding more insult than encouragement. If a parent has a child with an IQ less than that of a “qualifying” one, then Murray may appear discriminatory towards an audience that is associated