Why Is The Elite College System is Unfair?

Education in our society is focused on development and what it means to be taught in schools that set our future into stone. William Deresiewicz, an essayist, believes that there is an issue in today’s society and culture. His article, “Don't Send Your Kid to the Ivy League”, was published in the New Republic in 2014. He talks about the weakness of the elite college system and how its weakness can affect the many students within the system. The elite college system is the prestigious system with prep courses, and tutors in private or public schools that enforce students to take the route of the elite admission process. Deresiewicz assumes that students are really smart and knowledgeable enough to understand the curriculum of college, but in reality, it just leads to a dead end for a student’s success. His main claim is that the elite college system creates an inequality between students because it allows students with high skill levels and acknowledgement to be admitted into the elite college system, it affects the success of the students and their development as individuals. Deresiewicz follows up with his claim and reasonings to show that education should be equal and a right to all citizens in the social classes. However, there are those who agree that education, in public schools, isn’t equal and that it affects the way society is shaped. In this paper, I will be analyzing William Deresiewicz’s argument through his reasonings, his use of strategies, and how his argument connects to other authors who have a similar position.

In Deresiewicz’s argument, he points out that the elite admission system is unfairly biased because they are more towards students with higher skills and better acknowledgement than those who don’t. He states in his article that, “This system is exacerbating inequality, retarding social mobility, perpetuating privilege, and creating an elite that is isolated from the society that it’s supposed to lead. The numbers are undeniable. In 1985, 46 percent of incoming freshmen at the 250 most selective colleges came from the top quarter of the income distribution. By 2000, it was 55 percent (Deresiewicz, 206).” Meaning that the equality between students when they hold them back or even isolate between elite and non elite students. This shows the use of logos because he is showing the generalization on how the process of admitting students works. He also states, “Super People,” the stereotypical ultra-high-achieving elite college students of today. They have mastered them all, and with a serene self-assurance that leaves adults and peers alike in awe (Deresiewicz 202).” In other words, “Super People” are these type of students that are capable of doing more than just work or have an ordinary skill, they have more capabilities and talents that make them stand out better than others. This shows the use of ethos to generally define his version of “super people". This leads to students with low chances of having to succeed in public or private universities.

The elite college system was built as a system intended to help further the student’s development in their success while attending schools such as Yale, Harvard, and many more. However, the reality is that students tend to lose sight of their success path, leading to loss of curiosity and fear of failure. In the article, he states that, “So extreme are the admission standards now that kids who manage to get into elite colleges have, by definition, never experienced anything but success. The prospect of not being successful terrifies them, disorients them. The cost of falling short, even temporarily, becomes not merely practical, but existential. The result is a violent aversion to risk (Deresiewicz, 203). Meaning that focusing on success has a few risk factors such as falling behind and the fear of failing. This shows the idea of logos because he’s making a generalization about the negative factors of success. He also states that, “I should say that this subject is very personal for me. Like so many kids today, I went off to college like a sleepwalker. You chose the most prestigious place that let you in; up ahead were vaguely understood objectives: status, wealth—“success. (Deresiewicz, 202)” In other words, he ended up going through the same path as those who went or go to college today. He’s using his ethos to describe his experience on what it felt like to go to college. This does not allow the students to develop as individuals and be part of our own society.

The reason why he talks about the development of students in elite colleges is because he knows that college is supposed to teach people how to stand out and take opportunities while developing mental skills. Which then adds on to the problem with individuality and how it affects the student’s path of development. He quotes Ezra Klein, “What Wall Street figured out,” as Ezra Klein has put it, “is that colleges are producing a large number of very smart, completely confused graduates. (Deresiewicz, 205).” Colleges are helping students work hard but aren’t well developed as if they have no idea what to do next. He is using ethos to give the credibility of others as they describe their perspectives on how students are being developed. However, he generalizes the idea of development by stating, “There’s something in particular you need to think about: building a self. “We’ve taught them,” David Foster Wallace once said, “that a self is something you just have.” But it is only through the act of establishing communication between the mind and the heart, the mind and experience, that you become an individual, a unique being—a soul (Deresiewicz, 205).” In other words, college is the key to understanding ourselves and how we can be unique in our own way. This is an important concept because it relates to the broad generalizations made by his argument and how it affects us in today’s generation. But what does he want us to believe or assume?

Deresiewicz assumes that we, as students, understand how the curriculum of college works and how smart we are, but in reality, it changes the student’s path and leads them into a dead end, making them end up like “freaks.” In his article, he states, “There are exceptions, kids who insist, against all odds, on trying to get a real education. But their experience tends to make them feel like freaks” (Deresiewicz 203). Namely a student who wants a real education might be constrained and makes them feel different. By having us think about his assumptions, we can create a connection between how the other authors such as Diane Ravtich and Jean Anyon add to the idea of what the general idea of education is and how both of their arguments reflect his claim.

Diane Ravitch and Jean Anyon have different ideas and perspectives on education arguing how education is shown to be unequal between students. Diane Ravtich, “The Essentials of A Good Education”, believes that test scores don’t represent the student’s abilities and doesn’t help develop the student’s individual talents creating inequality. She responds to Deresiewicz’s argument by giving her opinion on why liberal education can help develop students to become better citizens and why tests should be replaced with liberal arts curriculum. For example, “All are enriched by and enhanced by the arts. The arts are essential for everyone. Life is enhanced by the arts. No student should be denied the opportunity to participate in the arts or to learn about the arts as practiced here and in other countries” (Ravitch 111). She is saying that the arts should be for everyone and that it should be taught in order to broaden the student’s knowledge. It’s essential because it shows that she is concerned about the students in the democratic society, thus representing the appeal to ethos. The reason why she appeals to ethos is because she acts in the line of parenting meaning that she cares about the student’s potential in what they want to learn. She is proving, in relevance to Deresiewicz’s argument, by giving her own personal background on her perspective of tests to back up her own argument. However, Jean Anyon uses an informative argument to show how unequal education is within the class system.

Jean Anyon, “From Social Class and The Hidden Curriculum of Work”, claims that education is predetermined by the curriculum in a specific part of the economy, which reinforces the status quo. She responds to the topic by giving generalizations about the five social classes and explains how the teachers teach their students within the social class community and observes them in the state of New Jersey. For example, “In the middle-class school, work is getting the right answer. If one accumulates enough right answers, one gets a good grade. One must follow the directions in order to get the right answers, but the directions often call for some figuring, some choice, some decision making” (Anyon 143). The meaning of this quote shows the general idea of how the middle class schools function in the community. Another example from her article states, “In the executive elite school, work is developing one's analytical intellectual powers. Children are continually asked to reason through a problem, to produce intellectual products that are both logically sound and of top academic quality. A primary goal of thought is to conceptualize rules by which elements may fit together in systems and then to apply these rules in solving a problem. Schoolwork helps one to achieve, to excel, to prepare for life” (Anyon 148). In other words, the elite schools primary goal is to teach students how to develop their knowledge and solve problems based on logical reasoning. She appeals to logos because she gives an observation of how schools would generally function and the way she structured the article is like she wants the article to appeal logos to the audience because it’s straightforward and is also repetitive. She is trying to prove that education should be an equal right for all students in the social classes and that there should be no distinction between the social class. Overall, both Ravitch and Jean create very distinct arguments to show the connections between the inequality of education and student development in the use of ethos and logos.

In this paper, I have discussed and analyzed Deresiewicz’s main claim and reasonings to his argument and how his argument connects to the beliefs of other authors who take a similar position to the equality of education and development. He believes that the weakness of the elite college system affects the development of the students, it affects the student’s development for success and that it creates a huge inequality for students who apply to the elite colleges. He assumes that we’re smart and that we have the capabilities to understand the curriculum in the elite college system, the reality of it is that the elite college system forces us to be in this dead end situation of being constrained and confined. His argument makes a connection between both Ravitch and Anyon and shows similar positions in development of students and how it makes us understand what the reader thinks about education. Overall, the author uses generalizations and broad evidence to back up his argument by applying ethos, logos and pathos to show how the elite college system needs to be mitigated. Now ask yourself this question, do you think education is a gateway to individuality or freedom?

Anyon, Jean. “From Social Class and The Hidden Curriculum of Work.” Rereading America: Cultural Contexts for Critical Thinking and Writing, edited by Gary Colombo, Robert Cullen, and Bonnie Lisle, 10th ed., Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2016, pp. 136–153.

Deresiewicz, William. “Don’t Send Your Kid to the Ivy League.” Rereading America: Cultural Contexts for Critical Thinking and Writing, edited by Gary Colombo, Robert Cullen, and Bonnie Lisle, 10th ed., Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2016, pp. 200–209.

Ravitch, Diane. “The Essentials of a Good Education.” Rereading America: Cultural Contexts for Critical Thinking and Writing, edited by Gary Colombo, Robert Cullen, and Bonnie Lisle, 10th ed., Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2016, pp. 105–113.