What's wrong with the American university system

[bigbadwolf]

Interesting interview in the The Atlantic Monthly. I don't agree with everything (e.g. that undergrad education be a liberal one, or that everyone can tackle higher education), but quite a bit resonates with me.

Well, there are two ways to pick a college. One is to go to a prestigious college, and when you graduate the world will know you went to Princeton or Stanford. It doesn't matter what happened in the classroom as long as you have that brand behind you. Claudia and I were up at Harvard talking to students, and they said they get nothing from their classes, but that doesn't matter. They're smart already—they can breeze through college. The point is that they're going to be Harvard people when they come out.

The second reason to go to college is get a good liberal arts education. We argue that you can get a better education at second or third tier colleges. Have you ever heard of Linfield College? It's in a little town called McMinnville, Oregon. We were very impressed with the campus. The professors care. They spend time with the students. The same is true in a place called Hendrix College in Arkansas, or Earlham College in Indiana. They provide a good education because they don't expect professors to do research.

 

[quantie]

Is there a real choice?

Is there a person who would go to that Linfield College or Earlham or Podunk University instead of Harvard unless there are financial reasons? What a silly guy was interviewed.

He can say all he wants and may sound great ("professors care"), but when it comes to making the choice it's Harvard or another school with good repulation. If you can't get into any of those for whatever reason, then you go where you can get in. Professors may care at Fleafield, but these professors are not anywhere as good as at Harvard, Stanford, Carnegie Mellon or any of the top schools. The quality of teaching is terrible at most colleges in America. The best colleges, on the other hand, are the best in the world.

The sad thing very common in our community (quants) is that we see very bright students coming from places such as China and India but not being able to get into a good school. Often it's for financial reasons. It's not the undergrads though. It's Indians and Chinese who come to get a graduate degree.

 

[bigbadwolf]

He can say all he wants and may sound great ("professors care"), but when it comes to making the choice it's Harvard or another school with good repulation. If you can't get into any of those for whatever reason, then you go where you can get in. Professors may care at Fleafield, but these professors are not anywhere as good as at Harvard, Stanford, Carnegie Mellon or any of the top schools.

"Good" in the sense of having a plethora of publications in ranking journals (often of dubious significance in themselves). But as the author claims, not necessarily good in terms of putting in teaching effort to make sure the students learn anything. Harvard and the like are pushing their brand name recognition -- and students and employers alike are focusing on the brand rather than what (if anything) is being taught and learnt.

The quality of teaching is terrible at most colleges in America. The best colleges, on the other hand, are the best in the world.

Best in what terms? Best in having faculty who've written a number of esoteric papers in ranking journals? Best in terms of brand name recognition? Or best in terms of teaching and learning? Many of these "leading" schools advertise the star faculty they have in their prospectuses -- but neglect to point that students are typically not taught by these stars, or that the few courses they teach are either advanced and esoteric or oversubscribed and crowded, or that these stars are indifferent about the quality of their teaching, and tend to be inaccessible.

The sad thing very common in our community (quants) is that we see very bright students coming from places such as China and India but not being able to get into a good school. Often it's for financial reasons. It's not the undergrads though. It's Indians and Chinese who come to get a graduate degree.

Again, what is a good school? Baruch is not Harvard but the MFE department has made a serious effort to offer courses and make sure something is being learnt. And this has not been lost on either students or employers.

 

[helpteye]

Is there a person who would go to that Linfield College or Earlham or Podunk University instead of Harvard unless there are financial reasons? What a silly guy was interviewed.

He can say all he wants and may sound great ("professors care"), but when it comes to making the choice it's Harvard or another school with good repulation. If you can't get into any of those for whatever reason, then you go where you can get in. Professors may care at Fleafield, but these professors are not anywhere as good as at Harvard, Stanford, Carnegie Mellon or any of the top schools. The quality of teaching is terrible at most colleges in America. The best colleges, on the other hand, are the best in the world.

The sad thing very common in our community (quants) is that we see very bright students coming from places such as China and India but not being able to get into a good school. Often it's for financial reasons. It's not the undergrads though. It's Indians and Chinese who come to get a graduate degree.

You are completely wrong; The best professors are not necessarily at the big brand schools; However, the professors at the big brand schools clearly have to be extremely well educated, no doubt. However, there are many very good professors in regular schools who prefer the quieter life; life out of the limelight. Watch the movie "GoodWill Hunting" for instance; Robin Williams character was a way more effective psychologist that all the famous psych professors and professionals that were tried. Yet Robin Williams character was a professor at a 2 year college. It must be understood that for instance, a calculus book read in Harvard is the same as a calculus book read in Oxford or Cal State etc. However, the average student at Harvard would be more diligent and intelligent than the average student at smaller name schools. But you can find genius, or diligence anywhere.

Just because you went to MIT does not mean I should automatically assume you are good at what you do and therefore its automatic. Only lazy employers do that.

 

[Anthony DeAngelis]

I think the American college system is fine, it is the grade schools which produce an incoming class more interested in their social lives and partying. The top institutions bring in the top students. I am sure the classes at Harvard are tough, but seem easy because you have exceptionally bright students.

The article really chooses 2 extremes. I mean there are a lot of great schools in the middle between Harvard and Linfield. Additionally, as mentioned in the previous posts, you become a tenured professor at Harvard not by being a great teacher, but by being an amazing researcher. At many large, private universities you will have to wait until 400 level classes to take full professors. I am sure Fama isn't teaching 5 classes a semester for UG's.

The best jobs and positions of power go to top Ivy students because you do not just accidentally end up at Harvard. Usually you went to a great private school or preformed at the top of your class at a public school. You engaged in EC's and volunteer efforts. You had a tutor for your SAT's and everything else. In essence, since day one you have been crafting an admissions packet to go to this school. Race horses are breed to win the Derby and students are groomed to go to Harvard. Of course it is a natural extension to put these groomed individuals into jobs with responsibility and prestige.

 

[bigbadwolf]

The best jobs and positions of power go to top Ivy students because you do not just accidentally end up at Harvard. Usually you went to a great private school or preformed at the top of your class at a public school. You engaged in EC's and volunteer efforts. You had a tutor for your SAT's and everything else. In essence, since day one you have been crafting an admissions packet to go to this school. Race horses are breed to win the Derby and students are groomed to go to Harvard. Of course it is a natural extension to put these groomed individuals into jobs with responsibility and prestige.

Harvard, Yale and Princeton are part of the American system of power in the same sense that Oxford and Cambridge are part of the British system of power and Tokyo of the Japanese system. A lot of places at Harvard and Yale -- I've heard (seemingly preposterous) figures as high as 40% -- go to "legacy scholars." That is, people like John Kerry and George W. Bush, who would never have been admitted on merit. The people who belong to the Greek letter fraternities and who get "gentleman's Cs" (what with grade inflation these days, gentleman's Bs). It's naive to think these universities are strict meritocracies. If you are rich or influential enough, you will get admitted. If you're neither, then you're engaged in the intensely competitive scramble for places, where the admission criteria is never quite made explicit, and appears capricious and arbitrary. One of the functions of these universities is to give an imprimatur, a stamp of recognition and approval to the offspring of the ruling class -- and to those upstarts who want to join that ruling class.

It's an open secret -- though Americans are furtive about it -- that the USA is a class society. Harvard and its ilk reinforce the class distinctions -- regardless of how well or how poorly they teach. Part of the ideological message they propagate is that they're citadels of excellence and thus that those graduating from these august schools are eminently suited to govern.

 

[Anthony DeAngelis]

Harvard is where the best and the brightest go or in some cases the richest. It sucks, its unfair, but if you are really smart you can get into a T10-20 school. If you cannot have a great life from going to Duke then I don't know what to say.

I absolutely agree that there are plenty of smart people in other schools. It is unfair that Harvard or its kin are perceived to be always superior when in many cases they are not.

 

[Andy Nguyen]

In essence, since day one you have been crafting an admissions packet to go to this school. Race horses are breed to win the Derby and students are groomed to go to Harvard. Of course it is a natural extension to put these groomed individuals into jobs with responsibility and prestige.

Wealthy parents in NYC paid ten of thousands of dollar each year for their pre-K children to get into top ranked public or private schools. You probably have an idea how much it would cost to keep providing that level of support until they get into college.
There is no way an average family can afford that.

 

[Anthony DeAngelis]

Absolutely agree Andy. There will always be individuals with better opportunities or a better childhood. The thing to keep in mind is that you must do your best and not worry about others. It might be something that you have to grow into. I went to two very well respected schools, but neither are Ivy or "prestigious" by any means. I respect all schools and am happy with the quality of education I have received.

Anyone who would judge someone else based on the school they went to without speaking to that person or understanding them is horribly ignorant or emotionally unintelligent.

If you are smart and have desire there are very few things that off limits in this life. It is more mental hurdles which hold people back.

 

[Yike Lu]

Anyone who would judge someone else based on the school they went to without speaking to that person or understanding them is horribly ignorant or emotionally unintelligent.

If you are smart and have desire there are very few things that off limits in this life. It is more mental hurdles which hold people back.

Somebody who gets it! Refreshing.

 

[bigbadwolf]

Wealthy parents in NYC paid ten of thousands of dollar each year for their pre-K children to get into top ranked public or private schools. You probably have an idea how much it would cost to keep providing that level of support until they get into college.
There is no way an average family can afford that.

In the US class-based society -- "plutocracy" would be a better word -- the average family is buggered from the get-go. Money buys access to good schools but also to individual tuition, piano lessons, large home libraries. It's called "accumulating cultural capital." There are tutoring agencies in London who either only employ Oxbridge graduates or are heavily biased towards them. I notice these agencies are getting work from the Russian new rich (among others), who want their children to be integrated into Western systems of influence and power. They are paying for live-in tutors to make sure their children get admitted to exclusive English schools like Rugby, Winchester, Harrow, Eton, and then subsequently get admitted to Oxford and Cambridge. They consider the imprimatur that, say, Eton and Oxford provide, to be real assets.

---------- Post added at 06:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:40 AM ----------

Anyone who would judge someone else based on the school they went to without speaking to that person or understanding them is horribly ignorant or emotionally unintelligent.

Nevertheless, it happens all the time. Most people are not good judges of the intelligence or competence of others. So they go by external signs and symbols -- a Harvard degree, say.

If you are smart and have desire there are very few things that off limits in this life. It is more mental hurdles which hold people back.

Only in the drivel of Norman Vincent Peale ("The Power of Positive Thinking") or the absurd novels of Ayn Rand. In real life one of the main ideas behind a class-based society is for the upper classes to be able to transmit privileges to their offspring so that they remain in that class -- we call it "class reproduction" -- and to make it difficult (but not impossible) for those from lower classes to rise to a more elevated station. The dice are loaded.

As conservative commentators like Kevin Phillips have pointed out, the US class system has led to an ossified society because class mobility is so limited. The propaganda is that the US is a dynamic society with opportunities for all -- the sordid reality is somewhat different.

 

[Noko]

Anyone who would judge someone else based on the school they went to without speaking to that person or understanding them is horribly ignorant or emotionally unintelligent.

But many employers still think this way. I didn't apply to a single private or elite school, because I simply could not pay for it. I am however very happy going to the state school I go to now, especially since a scholarship is covering everything. But once I graduate, and most likely finish graduate school at the same university, I will have to deal with the Harvard employers.

 

[Anthony DeAngelis]

@ BigBadWolf - Should I go buy you some tissues because you think you cannot be a Senator because you did not going to HYP? I am going to assume you have a masters or are in the process of obtaining one. Welcome to the elite in the USA. Most people in this country do not have a bachelors degree, let alone a masters.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_47/b3960108.htm

My quote is fact, not something out of an idealistic book. People are biased, people go with the easy choice. Welcome to life. Every society has elite institutions and coveted jobs. Just because you don't work for GS does not mean you cannot have life far better then most people. It sounds to me like you are railing against this country because it is unfair that an employer would take a Harvard grad over you. How about this, try networking or speaking to alumni.

Also, try imagining that maybe there are people at these top schools far more qualified than you.

Yawn Yawn Yawn, people are not upwardly mobile my ***. I am sorry that someone with a MS degree can only make 100K. The USA is just fine, yes we have a class system, but to a much lesser extent than other countries. Just because you don't go to an amazing private school does not mean you cannot make money and enjoy a comfortable life. The only thing that has changed in this country is people piss and moan 10x more then they used to. I blame it on this government forking over so much as if the government was created to be a pseudo mother to these people.



@Noko - Yeah, you will have to deal with Harvard, Wharton, Princeton, Cornell, LSE, and every other school. You will also have to deal with the kids who contact alumni and network who have much lower GPA's then you and who smooze their way in. Trust me, you are going to be competing with way more people then just Harvard grads. If you have a mindset of defeat I can guarantee that it will be the outcome.

 

[Connor]

The thing I don't like about the American class system is that we don't openly admit it. Sure if you asked people they would agree with the idea, but we as a society still cling to a misguided concept of equality and fairness.

 

[Anthony DeAngelis]

No society is completely class blind. Money obviously gives someone more chances, more opportunity. Thats why we all want it. I think the system we have here is about as fair as possible.

Upper middle class: The upper middle class consists of white collar professionals with advanced post-secondary educational degrees and comfortable personal incomes. Upper middle class professionals have large amounts of autonomy in the workplace and therefore enjoy high job satisfaction. In terms of income and considering the 15% figure used by Thompson, Hickey and Gilber, upper middle class professionals earn roughly $62,500 (€41,000 or £31,500) or more and tend to reside in households with six figure incomes.[9][16][28]


I think it is fairly easy, with enough effort, to move from the lower rungs to the higher rungs. Maybe the top of the chain is highly political, but getting near the top is easy to do with hard work.

- Go to a community college and do extremely well
- Go to a large state school and do well ( UMich, UVA, Cal, Penn State, UConn, etc).
- Either work at a large firm or go on to get a masters
- Accountants, engineers, etc can all make 50/60K to start out and this was achieved off state tuition


I do agree that there are classes in America. There are super rich, people who go to the best schools, etc. The thing is you do not have to go to the best schools of come from money to go to a top school.By top I mean T1-50 school. I consider someone who goes to Duke, UVA, UCLA, CMU, etc to all have an elite education. These things are not based on parents or class. We all have a fair chance at these.

 

[Yike Lu]

Duke, UVA, UCLA, CMU

Not all shots are fair.

It's easier if you live in e.g. California [UC system], TX [UT], North Carolina [UNC Chapel Hill] among others. Not all public school systems (i.e., affordable schools) make the top 50.

I agree with your premise, just pointing a disparity out.

 

[Anthony DeAngelis]

No, you are very correct and thanks for pointing that out. I am a fellow New Yorker and wish our state school system had as much cache as other states. Still, SUNY Buffalo, Binghamton, Albany, Baruch are all great schools with reasonable tuition and solid reputations.


Listen, I apologize if I was a little combative earlier. I simply feel that the USA has so many opportunities to achieve and do well that it is unfair to really project it as class divided. Having money and privilege makes it a lot easier to get into top schools and do well, but a very smart student, top of their class in high school with a history of helping in the community will be able to go to very good schools.

It all comes down to the person. Some people will look down on someone from a lesser school, but others will be willing to help someone who works hard. At any company, if you look, you will find people in power from all kinds of backgrounds. They will help you and give you a chance if you show to them that you are worth it.

Look at this forum. From the brief amount of time I have been on this site I can already tell that very intelligent and hard working people are here contributing. This site is made up of future professionals in very high paying careers. Will anyone disagree with me when I say that if someone qualified approached a person on this site with whom they knew and asked for advice or help that they would be turned down? I say no. This is a network, a place to help. The person from Harvard might not be on here and would be completely oblivious. They will not get the help that someone from Baruch might. Things are equalized.

Guys, I went to Syracuse University for UG. It is ranked 38th for business. I think it is fair to say that SU is not prestigious in the least. You know what though? There are some extremely passionate alumni who love to help. I have helped 2 individuals get jobs at my old employer and have spoken to numerous alumni on the street. I might not have the same leg up that an Ivy candidate would have, but I am hardly disadvantaged. I have always been of the opinion that you can be upset that you don't have more opportunities or you can go out and create your own. Be proactive and hard working and ask for help. People will take notice and people will help.

 

[bigbadwolf]

No society is completely class blind. Money obviously gives someone more chances, more opportunity. Thats why we all want it. I think the system we have here is about as fair as possible.

On what basis are you saying this? If memory serves, an OECD study a few years back argued that there is less class mobility in the USA than there is in the EU. If you're talking about fairness, Nordic Europe probably heads the league with the US trailing far behind among the OECD countries. The lack of class mobility in the USA and high Gini coefficient (.42, which is approaching South American levels) are probably related and make for an increasingly polarised society. Or in simpler terms, if present trends continue, the US class system is in danger of ossifying into a caste system. Which would support the prognoses of those who argue that both global capitalism in general, and US capitalism in particular, are morphing into a neo-feudal setup with an entrenched ruling class.

 

[Anthony DeAngelis]

"Cross-National Comparisons

How does the United States compare with other countries with regard to income mobility? We know that inequality is greater in the United States than it is elsewhere; does a higher rate of mobility serve to offset that inequality? The few studies that have compared mobility in the United States and other countries have concluded that, despite significant cross-national differences in labor market structures, mobility rates seem to be quite similar across countries."

Economic Mobility in the United States


You confuse me. Are you taking about someone who is poor and comes from a broken home one day becomes the richest man in America? If so then I will agree with you that it is a long shot.

I am talking about working class parents sending their child to a normal school and that child working hard and eventually making more and having a higher quality of life then their parents.

In the paper I looked at it compared the USA with Nordic countries. If you think that is a fair comparison you are living on Mars. I will absolutely agree with you that Europe is probably more "fair" then the USA. That is the difference between them and us. The USA (thank god) is not as socialistic as Europe. We do not care about fair. Truth be told, fair is never fair, it is just making someone who has it worse a little better. Fair in Europe is about as fair as Robin Hood is.

Furthermore, when you talk about class system are you describing castes like in India, very old British class systems or economic classes based on the amount earned? Frankly, from the ton of your posts and the way you describe things it sounds to me like you are not even a US citizen. If not, that is fine, but I think it is incorrect to try and describe a system that you are not native to.

I am not disagreeing that there is social differences and people with great wealth and people with very little. That is perfectly fine though. Not everyone goes to school. Those that go do not do very well or decide to study something which is not in demand. Some people work every hard to save, study in demand fields, go for graduate degrees, etc. Welcome to the USA. We let you do what you want here. We also have plenty of safety nets (too many IMO) to help someone who falls through the cracks. Our deficit is partly a reflection of the social welfare programs we have.


Long story short, I think we are fine, you think we have class struggles going on. End of the day what does it matter? Work hard, go to the best school you can and do not spend like wild and you will be fine. If you feel so bad about certain groups you are free to spend you extra earnings to send them to college or feed them. Isn't that beautiful? I don't tell you what to do and you don't tell me.

 

[bigbadwolf]

"Cross-National Comparisons

How does the United States compare with other countries with regard to income mobility? We know that inequality is greater in the United States than it is elsewhere; does a higher rate of mobility serve to offset that inequality? The few studies that have compared mobility in the United States and other countries have concluded that, despite significant cross-national differences in labor market structures, mobility rates seem to be quite similar across countries."

Economic Mobility in the United States

The study seems to somewhat dated -- 1996. A recent OECD report can be found here; look particularly at the graph on page 5. Alternatively, this article in Huffington Post sums up the main findings (with regard to the USA) in layman's language.

You confuse me. Are you taking about someone who is poor and comes from a broken home one day becomes the richest man in America? If so then I will agree with you that it is a long shot.

No. It's about the supposed promise of the new world, which was and is supposed to be free from the shackles of the class system of the old world. And what do we find? Surprise, surprise -- there's less class mobility in the land of the free and the home of the brave than in supposedly ossified and class-bound Europe.

The "American dream" is that those who work earnestly should be able to achieve comfortable middle-class status and security. But over the last thirty years or so, that dream has increasingly become a chimera, a mirage. Levels of inequality in the US are approaching those of Argentina, and in the space of a decade or two may approach -- who knows? -- those of Mexico and Brazil. The once robust US middle class has been withering away, and the US seems to be becoming polarised between a predatory overclass and an army of proles.

I am talking about working class parents sending their child to a normal school and that child working hard and eventually making more and having a higher quality of life then their parents.

Once upon a time ....

In the paper I looked at it compared the USA with Nordic countries. If you think that is a fair comparison you are living on Mars. I will absolutely agree with you that Europe is probably more "fair" then the USA.

Why? The US likes to think of itelf as a Western country, heir to Greece and Rome. If you wish, we can compare it to Nigeria and Zimbabwe for a more flattering comparison.

Furthermore, when you talk about class system are you describing castes like in India, very old British class systems or economic classes based on the amount earned? Frankly, from the ton of your posts and the way you describe things it sounds to me like you are not even a US citizen. If not, that is fine, but I think it is incorrect to try and describe a system that you are not native to.

Just to avoid ambiguity and confusion, are you saying that a US citizen cannot criticise his country and has to adopt a knee-jerk reflexive attitude of praise and approbation? Sounds to me a bit like Orwell's Oceania in "1984."

We also have plenty of safety nets (too many IMO) to help someone who falls through the cracks. Our deficit is partly a reflection of the social welfare programs we have.

Again, I'm just trying to understand. Earlier, you were thankful that the USA is not like socialist Europe; now you're claiming that there are too many social welfare provisions in the US? Something doesn't quite make sense .... And if US deficits are partly a reflection of supposedly munificent social welfare programs, why do most northern European countries have lower deficits? Could it be that US military spending is the primary culprit?

The deeper point to be made is that the symptoms the US exhibits -- eviscerated manufacturing, offshoring by US companies, declining social welfare provisions, weaker unions, rising unemployment, stagnant wages, profligate military spending, rising inequality -- are interrelated, and reveal an empire in steep -- and perhaps irrevocable decline. Conservative commentators like Andrew Bacevich, Kevin Phillips, Pat Buchanan and Paul Craig Roberts have been saying the same thing. The social contract is in shreds; the American dream in tatters. It may be unpalatable for many who've been indoctrinated in the superiority of all things American.