Biographies Of Educational Hegemony By Karen Ho

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.

College offers a wide variety of educational aspects. In “Why America’s Obsession with STEM is Dangerous,” Fareed Zakaria explains the issues involving the STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) educational system and explains the need for a liberal educational system. Zakaria says we need more creative, innovative, and critical thinkers, which can be achieved through a liberal education. He also says that we need the skills that come with a STEM education, but those can also be achieved through liberal education. A narrow study helps you receive a specific job, but a broad education allows you to explore the economical depths of work. Fareed Zakaria’s essay exemplifies rhetorical strategies and the three means of persuasion

The idea of a universal education system is criticized by many, because the idea of giving everyone a chance to prosper, has a detrimental effect on government resources; and the value placed on a post- secondary education, is somewhat diluted. This is wrong though, as people be judged on their academic skills, character and drive above their economic restrictions. The finances which a young person is born into, should not determine the life and career which they have. It has been shown that a college education increases a person’s earning power, but this education is contingent on money, which dictates your chance of achieving a recognized education. This is against the ‘education gospel’ which supports the idea that schooling should be for everyone, and that the more people who are educated, the less prejudices there will be in society. Education is universal, but post-secondary education, and one which leads people to positions of power and influence, is not. It is for the select few, of whom have the finances and opportunities to prosper that other, more underprivileged people do not, and that needs to change.

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

Students when given the opportunity to expand in something that interests them gain a confidence in learning that focuses more on internal aspects rather than on an education that will set a standard on what kind of individual they should be. For instance, Davidson in examination of Inez Davidson’s classroom found that "kids want to learn...as long as there is a payoff, not in what is won or achieved in statistical terms, but what is won and achieved inside, in the sense of self-confidence and competence" (Davidson 67). Students are not as shallow as education deems them to be. When given the opportunity to prove one’s worth it is more than high grades that are gained, it is having a place in the world through the betterment of “the Self” which betters the planet. Despite this, students are still being handed specific knowledge, and predetermined paths that are said to lead students to “success.” In truth, being handed opportunities only lead to a lack of motivation, since individuals will not want have the drive to earn for one’s self and to improve on all their overlooked skills and assets. Karen Ho refers to this as she quotes the undergraduate, Devon Peterson, on how “banking firms provide [undergraduates] with a way to maintain [their] elite status in society by providing avenues to wealth and power that other professions do not” (Ho 179). The recruitment process reflects how institutions, especially ones

In today’s world, young people think that if they continue their tertiary education, they can access a better job, no matter which subject they take. This situation indirectly causes a huge enrollment of students into universities and colleges, which may drop off the quality of education. As the author says, “quantity trumps quality” (pg. 168) which certify that the environment is skipped from education to jobs; meanwhile, the knowledge part is ignored by the students. In detail, they do not expect to learn something but just to get a degree which acts as “a passport to consideration for a job”. (pg. 164) This condition gradually turns credentialing into the norm. Everyone only cares about the degree that they will receive rather than concerning about what they will learn and develop through their subject’s material.

Social tendency among monarchies exalt high amenities and luxurious lifestyle in favor of power. Traditionally in sovereign government, family lineage is prioritized in the succession of power, exemplifying aspects such as of heir, inheritance, and birthright. Evolved from past reigns, today’s generation of working class individuals pass down experience and networks to heritage in order to persevere wealth in the family. Ho vindicates the dependence of pedigree in education and employment saying, “For decades, general, ‘open’ recruiting was not standard practice for most businesses: Ivy League graduates relied on family wealth and networks, entered graduate school or approached, via the ‘old boys’ network’ for financial or industrial fast-track grooming” (182). Students with not only well established educational but also family background have better opportunity to succeed financially. Wall Street attract students with similar background as a tactic to fixate its recruitment as well as its income. Behaviorism justifies the popular demand of highly prodigious student recruitment because students in that position desire to continue being superior. This leads to ideology of elitism, where the mindset of self advancement overwhelms the individual to desire the highest position of power. Without pedigree, individuals often struggle to have an effective impact on the job

It shows how ivy colleges prefer legacy admissions. Although it is not illegal, but recently “two legal theories” are offered under which “legacy preferences could be challenged at both public and private institutions under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause (Ladeswki-578).” The civil act of 1866 prevents the states from giving titles of nobility. Minorities since most of elite university’s alumni belong to upper class families. Americans are concerned about such type of practices as “it creates doubt about institution’s commitment to meritocracy and equal opportunity (Mullen-47).” On the contrary, three out of four Americans oppose ancestry based discrimination so they can create equal opportunities for lower class families to get into elite colleges.

It shows how ivy colleges prefer legacy admissions. Although it is not illegal, but recently “two legal theories” are offered under which “legacy preferences could be challenged at both public and private institutions under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause (Ladeswki-578).” The civil act of 1866 prevents the states from giving titles of nobility. Minorities since most of elite university’s alumni belong to upper class families. Americans are concerned about such type of practices as “it creates doubt about institution’s commitment to meritocracy and equal opportunity (Mullen-47).” On the contrary, three out of four Americans oppose ancestry based discrimination so they can create equal opportunities for lower class families to get into elite colleges.

Ever since its inception, human civilization has been run by a pecking order; a small group of elitists on the top of the chain of command dictate the social norms for the remaining individuals on the antithetical end of the spectrum. Individuals with traits outside these norms are ostracized and looked down upon by the hierarchy. Cathy Davidson’s, Project Classroom Makeover, promotes the use of customization in the education system to accommodate every students’ learning habits over the current use of standardization and curriculum based teachings. On the other hand, Karen Ho’s, Biographies of Hegemony, is about how one’s environment is engineered by institutions, which in turn establish hierarchies who set standards for society. However, Son by Andrew Solomon describes how horizontal identities, traits influenced by peer groups that separate individuals from their families, are seen as abnormalities and those with such identities are on the bottom of the said hierarchy. Based on Davidson’s, Solomon’s, and Ho’s works, individualism does into question because society forces individuals to conform to the standardized norm in which they are not allowed to have unique identities.

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 society advances and the boundary between people becomes seemingly less apparent, many individuals attempt to promote various plans based on the concept of equality. Anyhow, many so-called egalitarian plans would inevitably result in failure because their proponents blindly believe in the efficiency of equality. They neglect how people are motivated to improve and to test their limits by their instinct to compete. In her writing “Project Classroom Makeover”, Cathy Davidson proposes egalitarian plans consist of a “democratization of knowledge” (54) which depends on crowdsourcing and “working together collectively” (51). In Davidson’s perspective, problems will be solved by allowing everyone the equal opportunity to express themselves. However, Karen Ho’s research directly shows the impracticality of her plans by explicitly revealing the existence of hierarchy in her writing, “Biographies of Hegemony”. As shown by Ho’s research, no matter how alluring Davidson’s plans seem, they will not come about. Because Davidson’s idealistic plans disregard human beings’ instinct to strive and fight for what they valued. Such egalitarian plans will not be executed with hierarchy deeply rooted in our society, results precisely from human’s desire to compete with each other.

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.

Individuals who come a working class or lower income background are taught to be interdependent and to follow the rules as well as being able to adjust to their circumstances while their counterparts, middle class and upper-class individuals are taught to be independent, that they can be whatever they want to be at that “the sky’s the limit’ essentially that they can do whatever they set their mind to as long as they focus on themselves and nurture their talent. The problem arises because though professors and employers may feel that once a person of the lower or working class has gotten to a certain point that they have “made it” however, because many of these institutions, such as Cornell or Dartmouth college, focuses on people focusing on themselves and to be independent which is the exact opposite of how lower class and working-class individuals were raised, which leads to them not feeling that they belong or out-of-place. This feeling of not belonging can have a negative effect on lower class and working classes individuals work and grades however it has been shown that if teachers and employers implement more incentives and give more focus to rewarding teamwork and adaptability with others that those from lower to working class backgrounds can achieve just as much