Last spring at the Wesleyan University graduation, across a lawn that sloped away from the chapel with its bells ringing, over 2,000 family members gathered to picnic and celebrate the graduates of 2007. For one delicious hour, there was an unspoken affirmation that there is good in the world. The scene was worthy of a Renoir painting.
To an insider, the final picnic might have been taken for granted—just another commencement day, like so many across the United States. An outsider, on the other hand, might have rejected the picnic as an elitist and exclusionary celebration of education for a wealthy, white upper class.
Criticizing elitism at top colleges is popular, whether it is the huge endowments, liberal thinking and diversity, or accepting second-rate kids of third generation legacy stock.
But don’t forget that much of what is taken for granted or rejected about elite schools, is precisely what should be celebrated about them. A long tradition of small liberal arts colleges in the United States is hugely significant by itself. A thriving industry of privately funded colleges and universities based on the British colonial model is certainly not the international norm, where most education is publicly funded in large state-run institutions. While the education received may be arguably similar in both, career doors are definitely opened for students at smaller schools.
Secondly, more than half the graduates were women. We take this for granted, but one need only go back 50 to 100 years in U.S. history (even at Wesleyan), or compare women’s education around the world, to appreciate its significance. Third, a rapid scan of faces and names at Wesleyan reveals ethnic diversity that did not exist 10 years ago at any college. National ethnic trends have contributed to the evolution, but given a past history of quotas to limit “ethnic” admissions at most colleges, recognition of progressive admissions policies is due.
Possibly most significant is the increase in financially disadvantaged students at top schools. “Need-blind” admissions policies at over 40 institutions offer admission on the basis of merit, and the schools procure funding for those who can’t afford tuition themselves. Though conceptually attractive, much controversy surrounds need-blind policies. Some scholars like Andrew Delbanco (New York Review, March 29, 2007) think that in spite of new policies, top schools currently favor the rich more than ever; others point out that the other approach—lowering tuition—could have a regressive effect over time by reducing coffers needed to fund disadvantaged students. Lawrence Blum (New York Review, April 26, 2007) proposes increasing public support for the non-elite public universities as the solution to making higher education more democratic.
One thing is certain: elitism on the basis of social privilege alone is rightfully being challenged. The hope and opportunity for sustaining gender, class and race-neutral admissions at elite colleges lies with the new talent. The old guard will not likely relinquish its established advantage, so it is up to the newcomers to level the playing field by competing effectively.
All graduates of top schools become de facto members of a privileged club. New members must leverage that momentum and privilege. They must bring it home to their families and communities and create the same admission advantages for their families and communities that have worked for generations: early focus on reading, academic achievement, SAT tutoring if necessary. Within one or two generations we will see the legacy of a group of alumni who got their start by being granted a special merit-based opportunity. Until that time comes, the importance of supporting progressive policies though alumni gifts cannot be overstated. Meeting the responsibility of privilege through gifting is simply reinvesting profits. To shirk that responsibility is to guarantee a reversion back to elite education for only the rich, irrespective of talent. It could even threaten the future of glorious post-commencement picnics on the green. Because the adage is true: there is no free lunch.
Leave a Reply