DonT Send Your Kids To The Ivy League, By William Deresiewicz

Alfie Kohn’s Article “How Not to get into College” analyses many key factors of how the current school system does not work and how we as members of society need to work together extensively to remodel the system to ensure the success of future students by valuing education over grades. By looking at how students only join clubs and and worship numerical grades only to impress colleges; students facing pressure from parents, teachers, and society to get good grades and succeed in life; and how students live through many mental health implications due to a multitude of factors surrounding their educational life, we can determine that systemic factors of this society have turned students of this generation into grade grubbers.

People attend college or university for several reasons, including exploring hundreds of career opportunities, pursuing their passions, learning critical thinking skills, and achieving their maximum potential. According to Dr. Richard Vedder’s, “For Many, College Isn’t Worth It”, attending college or university is not worth the time, effort, or money – Dr. Richard Vedder wants to solely focus resources on private universities and institutions. Vedder describes how many graduates with Bachelor’s degrees do not even obtain jobs in their specific field and how they will never start a career in their area of academic study. In his article, Richard Vedder describes how there should be more stringent standards placed on college undergraduates; he believes that public universities are not necessary and only private, more elite universities should remain operational. I personally believe that obtaining a college degree from an accredited university is worth the risk and the money, not only for one’s self but for society as a whole. Instead of shutting down undergraduate universities, we should consider raising collegiate admission standards throughout the nation.

Many middle to lower class families cannot afford to send their kids to school and with Ivy League schools like Harvard and Princeton giving out generous financial packages to their student, who mostly come from wealthy background. The poorer students are on the losing end because they are not given the opportunity for aid. As Terry Hartle, the senior vice president of the American Council of Education, says, "Smart poor kids go to college at the same rate as stupid rich kids." What this is saying is that the wealthy families have vastly more opportunity to succeed in the college system even though they have equal or lesser smarts. Well respected schools such as NYU are now admitting students based on the financial fit not by merit.

Deresiewicz believes that “The purpose of education in a neoliberal age is to produce producers.”(1) In his introduction, Deresiewicz compares the ideologies of colleges from the 1920s to today’s thoughts. He concluded that “College is seldom about thinking or learning anymore.”(1) He also believes that there is only one value of education now and that is commercial. The other values are tolerated only when they pertain to commercial value. With the new beliefs in neoliberalism, Deresiewicz determines that “The world is not going to change, so we don’t need young people to imagine how it might.”(3) This leads to education just being about information rather than free thinking. He then goes into discussing how there are others who have come to the realization that not everyone can have high paying jobs as well. Deresiewicz concludes that students only care about the skills needed to start their career not obtaining general knowledge. Colleges teach their students to be leaders for their own benefit not the benefit of others. The neoliberal society, Deresiewicz believes, has begun to give students “a sense of helplessness”(5) so they have no

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).

At the beginning of the essay, the writer expresses the difficulties experienced by high-school graduates in gaining admission to universities, nowadays. She states,” College as America used to understand it is coming to an end” through Rick Perlstein (Addison 3). To show contrast between the past and modern days, Addison brings another character to the scene. She states that Perlstein had a ‘beatnik’ friend alongside him. The term ‘beatnik’ makes reference to a person of the artistic Beat generation of the 1950s and 60s. During that period, college education, offered in universities, was highly regarded. To further her argument, she claims that admission to universities, nowadays, relies solely on their Curricula Vitae.

Gerald Graff’s desire as an author and a professor at University of Illinois, is “For American students to do better-- all of them, not just twenty percent“ because he believes that education is not only for the elite few (3). His Clueless in Academe How Schooling Obscures the Life of the Mind strongly emphasizes that the faculty have the tools to succeed, yet does not give these tools to the students. Graff has first hand experience dealing with educational system and troubled students, so he explain his observations and how can education be improved. Throughout his work, Graff compels the reader to accept that professors must initiate and reach out to the students. He implies

In the essay, “Should Everyone Go to College?,” Stephanie Owen and Isabel Sawhill cover all aspects of this topic. They include the rate and variations of return and policy implications, and they also give many statistics to support all of their arguments. It is a very well-assembled essay that gives both sides of the topic. It is a very well put together essay that allows the reader to further understand the topic.

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.

In his work entitled “The Shock of Education: How College Corrupts”, journalist and author Alfred Lubrano poses the question of how receiving education can lead to a harsh reality. Lubrano explains that as a child works toward a higher education, there are certain aspects of life they are forced to leave behind as they enter into a new existence. According to Lubrano’s statement, “At night, at home, the differences in the Columbia experiences my father and I were having was becoming more evident” (532). Additionally, Lubrano states, “We talked about general stuff, and I learned to self-censor. I’d seen how ideas could be upsetting, especially when wielded by a smarmy freshman who barely knew what he was talking about” (533). In answering this question, Lubrano must explore the types of conversations that occurred with other family members, the disconnection from his peers, and how segregating himself from his family

“What Is College For” by Andrew Delbanco, shows the need for both a universal college system; one which caters for all of society, and one which provides a liberal education. Delbanco gives many reasoned thoughts on how, and why the college system has become restricted, to purely those of a higher socio-economic background, rather than being exclusive to people of all backgrounds. The idea of college being a platform for people to learn, advance their skills, and become whatever they want to be has seemingly diminished over time. The ideas in favor of such an educational system are put forward, but they are foreshadowed in my opinion, by the notion that people should have the same educational opportunities in life; regardless of their economic or social background. A universal education system is needed for our society to prosper, especially if it provides a liberal education; this is not just for the individuals that make up a community, but for the community, as a whole.

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

To discuss the value of liberal education, there should be a mutual understanding that investing in college means to invest in oneself. Furthermore, while some consider this investment to be a critical stepping stone to success, others dismiss it, explaining that school simply cannot prepare someone for the “real world.” Sanford J. Ungar and Robert Reich explore both of these subjective values in their essays “The New Liberal Arts” and “College is a Ludicrous Waste of Money.” Ungar, the president of Goucher College in Baltimore, Maryland, discusses why a liberal education should be sought after; he does so by introducing common misconceptions about liberal arts and, using argumentative persuasion, proves their insignificance. On the other hand, Reich, the former secretary of labor, argues against the conventional belief of college being the only road to financial wellbeing; rather, he explains why a two-year education may better accommodate many college students, especially those in need of immediate work or those that simply cannot afford a four-year education. In all, although both Reich and Ungar generally discuss liberal education, their perspectives differ when it comes to its practicality in the current economy. Also, to express their different views about liberal arts, the authors use contrasting tones to present their ideas to different intended audiences.

The reader is left to wonder if any real thought is going on in this mans head. By sharing this story with the reader, we are left to wonder how many people share the Ivy League director’s views.

For the past half a century education has been heralded as the key to success. Parents across the country preach to their children that, providing they acquire a college education and degree, the world is their oyster. The documentary “Ivory Tower”, directed by Andrew Rossi, calls that whole notion into question. The biographical film opens at the University of Harvard, the nations oldest institution of higher learning, on move-in day. Hundreds of new students and their parents flood the campus grounds of one of America’s most prestigious universities. From there, in order to provide a complete overview of the complete college experience, several other types of colleges are shown; such as community, 2-year, and vocational schools. Each is examined in turn to determine both the positive and negative aspects.