Jim Jump takes a close look at David Brooks’s argument regarding the societal effects of Ivy League admissions, suggesting that while he may not wholly agree with Brooks’s stance on meritocracy, his ideas merit further contemplation.
Brooks’s Argument
In his December piece for The Atlantic titled “How the Ivy League Broke America,” Brooks claims that the admissions practices of Ivy League schools significantly contribute to various ongoing issues within American society.
He links a host of problems to these prestigious institutions and the overarching concept of meritocracy, including:
- Overly involved parenting styles
- A lack of play and creative subjects in classrooms
- Limited job opportunities for those without college degrees
- Diminished community organizations like the Elks Lodge and Kiwanis Club
- A disproportionate number of Ivy League alumni gravitating towards finance and consulting roles
- The rise of populist movements fueled by misinformation and generalizations.
Notably, Brooks misses the opportunity to address the decline of small businesses and the impact of reality television in his analysis.
Redefining Meritocracy
Brooks argues that the Ivy League has influenced America’s social ideals, asserting that societal notions of the “ideal” individual have shifted considerably.
He points out that a century ago, the epitome of success—often referred to as the “Well-Bred Man”—was predominantly characterized by white, male aristocracy, athleticism, and physical appearance, with intellectual prowess often overlooked.
Academically inclined individuals were frequently marginalized, much like practices employed by exclusive social clubs.
Change began in the 1930s when educational leaders, such as Harvard’s president James Conant, recognized the need for new forms of leadership to tackle looming societal problems.
They began championing an admissions process that prioritized intelligence and capability over family lineage, believing that focusing on academic prowess could boost social mobility.
However, Brooks raises doubts regarding the beneficial outcomes of this educational philosophy.
While he acknowledges the reduction of various types of bigotry, he posits that the previous social ideals contributed to significant achievements, like the New Deal and America’s post-World War II leadership.
In contrast, he links the shift towards meritocracy to a series of conflicts and crises, including the Vietnam War, the 2008 recession, and the political turbulence amplified by social media.
Challenges in Admission Practices
A major flaw in Brooks’s reasoning is his inclination to pinpoint a singular cause—what he terms “meritocracy”—for a multitude of complex social phenomena.
Though meritocracy, which rewards individuals based on their abilities and achievements, initially seems appealing, the challenge lies in defining what “merit” truly means.
It is often subjective; people’s perceptions of merit can vary greatly, especially when factors like race or socioeconomic status come into play.
According to Brooks, the Ivy League’s interpretation of meritocracy places too much weight on academic brilliance while neglecting critical life skills.
He indicates that excelling academically does not guarantee success in life, which increasingly relies on teamwork and collaboration.
Research backs his claim, pointing out that high academic performance does not always translate to professional success later on.
In his view, the existing meritocratic system engenders a divide resembling a caste system, pitting the educated elite against those with less formal education.
This separation, he argues, fuels a populist backlash and deepens societal divides.
Nevertheless, Brooks’s critique appears to dwell more on the ideologies associated with rationalism and social engineering than on meritocracy itself.
Whether one agrees with Brooks’s perspective or not, his article opens the door to essential discussions about the admissions processes at prestigious colleges.
One pressing question is the ongoing validity of standardized testing like the SAT, which was introduced during the changing landscape of Ivy League admissions.
Once touted as an equitable measure of intelligence, it’s become clear that test scores frequently mirror family wealth and are influenced by preparatory programs.
Moreover, the SAT’s original intention of gauging aptitude seems to have shifted.
This brings us to another inquiry: Are we genuinely assessing what we value, or have our values become aligned with what can be easily quantified? Brooks critiques elite institutions for fixating on academic metrics while overlooking crucial non-cognitive skills essential for success after graduation, such as empathy and relationship-building.
While he raises a valid concern, placing emphasis on academic achievements is reasonable, as college is intrinsically an academic endeavor.
The real challenge lies in devising effective methods to evaluate non-cognitive characteristics.
Another considerable issue centers on the very purpose of the admissions process.
Presently, the SAT is designed to forecast academic performance during the initial year of college.
Shouldn’t we aspire to something greater, selecting candidates based on their potential societal contributions after graduation or their capacity for personal growth throughout college?
Brooks also queries whether current admissions practices favor those adept at accumulating impressive credentials.
One student at a prestigious university shared that nearly all their peers had exceptional resumes full of independent research and nonprofit involvement.
This prompts contemplation on whether students genuinely engage in these endeavors out of interest or merely to boost their admissions chances, and if admissions officers can actually differentiate between the two.
Additionally, Brooks points to the “hubris” often shown by those who navigate elite admissions processes.
Many successful candidates attribute their achievements solely to their talent and hard work, often ignoring the role of privilege and luck in their success.
This mindset could be contributing to the growing societal divide and a widespread distrust of elite institutions.
While my views differ from Brooks’s characterization of meritocracy and his assertion that the Ivy League has driven societal decline, his observations inspire critical conversations about college admissions and the values they reflect.
Jim Jump recently wrapped up a distinguished 33-year tenure as academic dean and college counseling director at St. Christopher’s School in Richmond, VA.
His extensive experience includes roles as an admissions officer and educator, and he has served as a past president of the National Association for College Admission Counseling.
For his significant contributions to the field, he will receive the 2024 John B. Muir Excellence in Media Award from NACAC.
Source: Insidehighered