Performance vs. Pedigree
Two pieces in the Sunday, March 17th New York Times – an article and an essay – were stimulating
“bookends” to the ongoing conversation about social engineering, in college admissions
or employment hiring practices.
David Leonhardt’s “Better Colleges Failing to Lure
Talented Poor” presents the findings of a study that “definitively” shows that
many high school students miss out on elite college experiences, mostly by not
applying but also by choosing to stay closer to home. Some readers rejected the “prestige is
better” inferred in the article’s title and others felt there was a
paternalistic “prestige knows best” tone to the piece.
The implication that
smart kids who miss out on "the best colleges" are somehow further
disadvantaged is stretched too far. In his blog on March 18, 2013, Matt
Reed writes:
In my observation, anyone who
puts too much faith in a Great Chain of Being is missing the point. Having attended one of the elite colleges
myself, I can attest from personal observation that what makes them different
from other places isn’t so much academic rigor as a sort of unconscious
affluence. Students there don’t work
thirty or forty hours a week for pay while they take classes. And the assumption that “exclusive” equates
to “high quality” is both antithetical to public higher education, by
definition, and a reversion to the bad old habit of mistaking inputs for
outputs.
Referring to inputs and outs – what Bowen and Bok called
“selection vs. treatment” effects – in his Times
essay on Sunday, Dan Slater describes “mismatch theory”:
It’s the idea that affirmative
action can harm those it’s supposed to help by placing them at schools in which
they fall below the median level of ability and therefore have a tough time. As
a consequence, the argument goes, these students suffer learningwise and,
later, careerwise. To be clear, mismatch theory does not allege that minority
students should not attend elite universities. Far from it. But it does say
that students — minority or otherwise — do not automatically benefit from
attending a school that they enter with academic qualifications well below the
median level of their classmates.
So often the focus in special treatment arguments is on
who isn’t advantaged in the
process. Slater turns the tables in an
important way, writing about those (not only minority students) for whom special treatment turns out to be
the booby prize:
…some minority students who get
into a top school with the help of affirmative action might actually be better
served by attending a less elite institution to which they could gain admission
with less of a boost or no boost at all.
As an undergraduate at an elite college I saw a variety
of "special admits" – who were well aware of their status – be marginalized while
the college, arguably, benefited by their presence: athletes, sons of big donors, racial
minorities, and even some women described feeling “ornamental.”
Most colleges seek talented and diverse student populations that will
have a general educational impact on each other, in and out of class. But there is a superficial and disingenuous
quality to crafting a class (through selection) that fits an idealized view but
which the college may not deserve. Many colleges “talk the talk” about
diversity but a much, much smaller number actually invest in the structure and
resources to create a truly welcoming environment that is likely to support
success for a wide variety of talented kids.
While seeking to enrich the educational experience they
offer, it is incumbent upon a college community to anticipate and genuinely
attempt to meet the needs of students who may be non-traditional or out of the
mainstream of the predominant campus culture.
Many assert quality and desire greater diversity. To earn
it, colleges have to work for and deserve
quality and diversity. Authenticity is
powerfully attractive.
We know from students, parents and counselors, that the
ultimate college selection is based upon a student’s sense of the “fit” between
their background, interests, and aspirations.
It is, after all, their choice.
Not to diminish the high potential of
resource rich college experiences, it is well worth considering the notion that
many students have wonderful educational experiences at the best college for
them which very well might not be a
marquee-name institution. In fact,
others may squander advantages that they stumble over-and-around at high-prestige colleges. I've seen both
happen.
Rather than urging the Amhersts and Bowdoins to do the recruitment
equivalent of hydrofracking for undertapped talent, how about focusing upstream
in the human capital development pipeline?
Respect individual choice, support preparation for and education about
the world of opportunity that exists, and invest in the vitality of the
incredibly diverse education systems we have which, taken together, can be the
best for all.
