Sheep with University Degrees

It all started with an essay published in “The American Scholar” in 2008. William Deresiewicz, a former professor from Yale University, described a phenomenon he called Ivy League retardation, which consists of his inability to have a five minute conversation with his plumber. What happens between Deresiewicz and his plumber is exactly what happens between Al Gore/Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton (name anyone you wish) and American society. In brief: The gap between the elites and the common people created by prestigious universities relates to elites in general, not only professors. Prestigious education is another mechanism of class division in the American oligarchy, which pretends to be a meritocracy.

The article was obviously controversial and spread virally, mainly due to social media. To keep the ball rolling, Deresiewicz decided to write a book. His “Excellent Sheep” is a provocation bound for success, especially because it is based on the formula of the junior visionary guidebook. If you already are at college or are planning to apply, Deresiewicz will help you save your soul. Advice of this type is of course a great idea for promotion, but what is really interesting is the analysis of American society in the context of education which Deresiewicz carries out in his book, especially since the Polish educational system has set a target of repeating all the mistakes made by the U.S., with privatization of university education as mission number one. It is probably merely on the basis of banal observation that ivory towers such as Harvard or Yale indeed shine on the international scale in comparison with the mediocrity of public education at basic levels. The fact that “the ranking of best universities” has been and still is a marketing tool in itself, which as a matter of fact has led to a hysterical demand for Ivy League education, doesn’t draw anyone’s attention.

Deresiewicz unsurprisingly but accurately observes that an institution designed to be business-driven cannot work in the interest of community. Harvard, Stanford and Yale represent the interests and mentality of a specific, privileged caste of society. Welcome to the club.

You enter such a university not because you are very talented. You enter because your parents are bankers and doctors, and the Ivy League is a natural way to confirm that you belong to this class and to meet other people who also belong there.

Is it difficult to get there? The less money and the fewer contacts you have, the more difficult it is, but — as Deresiewicz points out — even your SAT results (an exam taken at the end of high school, in some way equivalent to a Polish secondary school-leaving examination) shows primarily how much money your parents invested in you and not how much knowledge you have. Preparation for Ivy League starts early — private schools, private tuition, collecting “stars” for outside school activities (baseball, violin, ballet) and reference letters from friends of parents and friends of friends of parents. Of course, writes Deresiewicz, maybe you have better SAT scores than the guy who sat at the next computer, but 95 percent of society was not even allowed to sit the exam.

Diversity is a well-known and well-liked word at American universities. Exception proves the rule and admitting a talented poor student or a lost artist once in a while helps the accurate functioning of propaganda — universities in the U.S. need to pretend that they indeed help make the American dream come true. However, the only diversity which students at Yale and Stanford can actually experience is the fact that Mike is from Boston and Ali came from Pakistan. Mike plays the clarinet and Ali likes football. The only change Princeton has undergone since it contemptuously abandoned its all-so-plebeian name “College of New Jersey,” is the fact that it is currently educating a global and not local elite.

The effect of American education is a separate matter. Moving away from liberal arts education and general education in humanities creates an army of young people who can do tests and are good at some narrow specialization, but know practically nothing about the world. Over 60 percent of Harvard graduates take up jobs in finance and corporate consulting anyway, even if they studied humanities. They look the same, they wear the same clothes, they are equally stressed and disoriented in their lives, observes Deresiewicz. These are the people who will form the class of future political leaders. The best and brightest class represents extreme individualism, so theoretically it cannot represent anything that is collective. The poor are poor, because they are worse — less intelligent or not working hard enough. Protestant ethics in the times of late capitalism. Social Darwinism. Isn’t it what modern meritocracy is about?

Deresiewicz’s book fit very well into the discussion, which has been ongoing for a while now, about what to do with American education. The economy and the job market haven’t been able to justify for a long time the tragic situation of young graduates with debt for school tuition which they may never be able to pay off. What if a graduate doesn’t have money? “Borrow money if you have to from your parents, start a business,” advised Mitt Romney in one presidential debate. If they don’t have bread, why won’t they start eating cookies? For those like Mitt Romney, on some emotional level, those who are not like Mitt Romney simply don’t exist. They know they’re out there but they can’t imagine what their lives are like. Neither can they imagine what the life of a plumber is like.