Featured Stories

Response to “Don’t Send Your Kid to the Ivy League”

In short: I agree. But only with the headline. The rest of the article, not so much.


In the New Republic, William Deresiewicz writes “Don’t Send Your Kid to the Ivy League.”

Our system of elite education manufactures young people who are smart and talented and driven, yes, but also anxious, timid, and lost, with little intellectual curiosity and a stunted sense of purpose: trapped in a bubble of privilege, heading meekly in the same direction, great at what they’re doing but with no idea why they’re doing it.

When I speak of elite education, I mean prestigious institutions like Harvard or Stanford or Williams as well as the larger universe of second-tier selective schools, but I also mean everything that leads up to and away from themthe private and affluent public high schools; the ever-growing industry of tutors and consultants and test-prep courses; the admissions process itself, squatting like a dragon at the entrance to adulthood; the brand-name graduate schools and employment opportunities that come after the B.A.; and the parents and communities, largely upper-middle class, who push their children into the maw of this machine. In short, our entire system of elite education.

So far so good. But it’s below he gets into murky waters and never quite gets out. Read the whole thing. It’s worth reading just to help you think about the issues from the progressive point of view. He concludes:

I used to think that we needed to create a world where every child had an equal chance to get to the Ivy League. I’ve come to see that what we really need is to create one where you don’t have to go to the Ivy League, or any private college, to get a first-rate education.

High-quality public education, financed with public money, for the benefit of all: the exact commitment that drove the growth of public higher education in the postwar years. Everybody gets an equal chance to go as far as their hard work and talent will take them—you know, the American dream. Everyone who wants it gets to have the kind of mind-expanding, soul-enriching experience that a liberal arts education provides. We recognize that free, quality K–12 education is a right of citizenship. We also need to recognize—as we once did and as many countries still do—that the same is true of higher education. We have tried aristocracy. We have tried meritocracy. Now it’s time to try democracy.


Deresiewicz gets it partly right. He claims the Ivy League and other ultra-competitive higher education is bad for students because it perpetuates a pre-existing class system. Though we conservatives are not for class systems, as they are coercive examples of government power in action, we believe that progressives go about it the wrong way. Progressives identify people as upper class who luck into a million dollar payday or sell a house that has wildly inflated in value one year, ignoring the fact that they’re just like Jerry down the block the next year. And if progressives turn one year of someone’s life into a definition of that person as a class enemy, then clearly they have defined class into irrelevance. After all, if class is so flexible it changes year to year then it’s not a permanent class at all, and all attempts to counter it are misguided and stupid.

Furthermore, it was not until public schooling was created in the US that there was anything like a class system in this country. George Washington became the richest man in the colonies after starting at age 14 as a professional land surveyor, buying good property as he measured it, and being smart. He only went to ONE YEAR of formal schooling. Ever. In. His. Life. His childhood was spent hunting, fishing, reading good books when the weather was bad, talking with his older and wiser neighbors, and working on the land. In fact, the whole purpose of public schooling, which was sprang from India and Prussia, both highly caste bound societies, was to keep the lower classes in their place and allow the upper classes to slip out of public school bondage in the nurturing classrooms of their private schools. Today’s public schools, drafted by the same architects who design prisons and staffed by insufferable modern day pedants, are even more decidedly on the side of those who see intelligence and creativity as protruding nails to be hammered flat.

We conservatives see a much different connection to “class.” Those who have close personal and familial connections to those with political power are in the upper class. That’s what the Ivy League does. That is its “raison d’etre.” It connects students to politically connected students and students who come from money. With the prevalence of crony capitalism in the US, those with connections to power can receive government contracts, preferences in tax treatment and trademark protection, and other advantages that amount to a government grant of monopoly rivaling anything Louis XIV handed out back in old France.

The problem with the Ivy League is not that it perpetuates the real class system of government power, though that is bad enough. The real problem is that it is a lousy bargain. They teach total crap courses, most based on Marxist ideology instead of fact, force individuality crushing speech codes and mandatory awareness training on the students, privilege perversion over normality, push pre-sexual-contact contracts with one hand to buffer the hookup culture they promote with the other hand, and actively censor Christian and conservative activity to produce a rabidly progressive monoculture where passivity and conformity are rewarded and independent thought castigated. They also push a drinking to get drunk culture and the general impression that every university is an all-inclusive resort akin to Sandals Harvard campus. How can students who learn to excel in this soul-crushing, tempting, distractingly perverse environment be ready to think for themselves?

They have been going about creating leaders the wrong way. Leaders are created by leading, not by kowtowing to pedantic bullies. And that’s what’s wrong with the Ivy League and the rest of the education establishment. They are bullies and they teach too much crap. Common Core will only make things worse.

The best thing you can do for your kids is homeschool them while you can. When it comes to college, I agree with Deresiewicz. Don’t send them to the Ivy League.

Twitter: @beaglescout


About beaglescout

Twitter: @beaglescout #NotMyImpeachment
View all posts by beaglescout →

Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
5 Comment threads
3 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
7 Comment authors
michelkyuubiBeaglescoutvassar bushmillsnessabeaglescout Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Problem with higher ed in general is that thet curriculums and atmosphere you describe at the Ivy League Schools, is increasingly being copied at state universities across the land, stealthily encouraged by local Agenda 21 acolytes who have fanned out across the country, posing as Americans. “Progressives identify people as upper class who luck into a million dollar payday or sell a house that has wildly inflated in value one year, ignoring the fact that they’re just like Jerry down the block the next year.” So true and many conservatives join them in classifying people as “millionaires” who might have… Read more »


Higher education is a racket much like every other thing that is government backed. It’s the transferal of wealth to a select few via propaganda. Yes, you need to make 6 figure student loan debt that you’ll probably not pay off before you die because higher education is the only way to get a job.

You know, kind of like those Axe commercials… Use Axe whatever and you’ll get the hot babes. Sells a lot of products, doesn’t do much in delivery.


“The first thing that college is for is to teach you to think.”

When you begin with an incorrect premise, the rest of what you write is drivel. I would phrase it as:
The first thing that college is for is to CAUSE you to think. In some cases, to FORCE you to think. And I’d submit that many, if not most people really don’t need college to cause them to think. But hey, the environment is pleasant and it sure beats having to actually, you know, work for a living (while you’re thinking).


“Everyone who wants it gets to have the kind of mind-expanding, soul-enriching experience that a liberal arts education provides.” I thought that was what we had when people had to work and struggle to get into and continue thru college. The best gauge I know of to measure “wants to” is the willingness to work for something, the drive and desire to slave long, thankless hours, to suffer and endure until you finally persevere. I got three years worth of education experience lately when I spent my GI Bill money before Obama, et al found someone to bail out with… Read more »

Bernard Chumm

Forgot how good this is. Reread.