The Ivy League: Don't Trust 'Em
It was predictable -- after years of Ivy League presidents, CEOs, bank presidents, and Supreme Court justices, Americans have learned a thing or two about that collection of fancy university graduates.
They don't trust 'em. From Rasmussen Reports:
...only three percent (3%) say individuals who go to Ivy League schools are better workers than those who go to other schools. A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 79% do not think Ivy League students make better workers. Eighteen percent (18%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Adults across nearly every demographic agree that an Ivy League education does not necessarily make someone a better worker.
This is good news. But it's even better news in the general sense -- Americans seem to be turning away from things like automatic promotion, tenure, lifelong sinecures:
Most American Adults think how much money an individual is paid should depend more on what they get done on the job rather than their educational background or how long they’ve worked for a company.
In March of last year, an overwhelming majority of Americans (81%) said that people earn more practical skills through life experiences and work after college rather than in college.
I wonder if this is part of a general trend away from automatically trusting the officially-sanctioned elites, in all fields. I mean, how much trust is there for the "best" education "experts," or the "smartest" investment bankers, or the "Nobel-winning" climate scientists, or the "Harvard-educated" president? For a free society, we've invested a huge amount of social capital in our elite brands. Maybe we're rethinking this?
- Comment (49)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: The Ivy League: Don't Trust 'Em
I assume the Obama claque has been a real eye-opener for a lot of folks. He's surrounded himself with laughably incompetent and inexperienced toadies, pretty much all of whom went to Ivy League schools.
Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, all by themselves, must have managed to cripple the brand.
Oct '10
Re: The Ivy League: Don't Trust 'Em
Americans have never had the deference most other nations do, though.
I once tried warning an Australian friend of mine of Australia's overheated housing market. At the time, county governments in California were releasing prisoners due to overcrowding and budget cuts, and I felt obligated to warn him of what could happen in Australia.
He insisted it wasn't appropriate for him to think about such things, without consulting experts on the topic. Since I wasn't an expert, it wasn't appropriate for me to comment. I was flabbergasted.
Of course, this might've just been bubble psychology, and certain the U.S. has had plenty of that. But still, the insistence on deferring to "experts" was a little disturbing.
Aug '10
Re: The Ivy League: Don't Trust 'Em
I see this more as "know-nothing populism" than as "healthy skepticism" and dislike the trend of the right associating itself with it. Of course as an ivy-league intellectual I would say that, wouldn't I?
Seriously though, I think there's a big difference between taking to heart Hayek's warning that we must "demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design" as compared to a reflexive feeling that intellectuals are a bunch of ideological power hoarders with no real expertise. In other words, it's entirely appropriate to be skeptical of elites who talk about "investments" in high speed rail but to trust elites who explain evolution. I see fault both with the class resentment of the uneducated and with the pretensions of elites who deliberately conflate their expertise and their policy preferences (e.g., the protestations of the NIH types notwithstanding, there's nothing "unscientific" about having a moral objection to embryonic stem cells).
Edited on Mar 16, 2011 at 10:44amOct '10
Re: The Ivy League: Don't Trust 'Em
Kenneth: I assume the Obama claque has been a real eye-opener for a lot of folks. He's surrounded himself with laughably incompetent and inexperienced toadies, pretty much all of whom went to Ivy League schools.
Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, all by themselves, must have managed to cripple the brand. · Mar 16 at 10:36am
I don't know, Kagan isn't as bad. Supposedly she pushed for more conservative representation at Harvard law school, or something like that. She's very much the exception to the rule, though, from what I can tell.
Dec '10
Re: The Ivy League: Don't Trust 'Em
What has the Ivy League really produced besides a brand anyway? At some point reduced quality overrides brand loyalty in everything.
May '10
Re: The Ivy League: Don't Trust 'Em
Two important traits for worker success are entrepreneurialism and a willingness to work hard to earn promotion. I don't think elite universities necessarily instill these characteristics. Instead students often have a sense of entitlement. This is a very broad generalization, I know, but I would much rather have an associate with a public education and the desire to succeed than one who has an elite education and rolls an eye everytime he or she is asked to do something.
The cream still rises and it is a mistake to believe the die is cast at twenty-two.
Oct '10
Re: The Ivy League: Don't Trust 'Em
anon_academic, we've had such idiotic elites, though. I mean, how many decades was the social intelligentsia putting poor blacks through their sick little experiment in social engineering, before they finally admitted they were wrong? As far as I know, the early 2000s is when that happened; that's, what, forty years?
I think we have a rational basis to be anti-intellectual in this country, given the spectacular mistakes we've seen (the recent financial crisis being the tip of the iceburg).
Any intellectual discourse remotely relevant to public policy has far more to do with tribalism and cultural allegiances then serious attempts at scientific debate.
Mar '11
Re: The Ivy League: Don't Trust 'Em
Every education, regardless how expensive, is what the student makes of it.
Jul '10
Re: The Ivy League: Don't Trust 'Em
While it's encouraging to see some skepticism of elites who appeal to nothing but their pedigree, I tend to agree with anon-academic that there is a strong anti-intellectual component that isn't encouraging. If you go read any other internet message board or talk to many kids under 20, you'll find empirical thought, logic, and basic recognition of the difference between facts and opinions are sorely lacking. It's not so much that people aren't listening to elites; they don't want to listen to anybody.
May '10
Re: The Ivy League: Don't Trust 'Em
I am going to take up anon_academic's defense on this point. We must be careful on the Right to distinguish between anti-intellectualism and challenging undue deference to the academic professions. We have a rich intellectual history on the Right and we should embrace it. Heck, I'm a conservative because that intellectual history is correct. We do not defer mindlessly to the latest fad study or opinion piece by a credentialed professor. This is not, however, the same as wanting to give wedgies to every nerd with big glasses. Too often we lazily accept arguments that amount to nothing more than the latter when we should be making the former argument.
To really stir the pot, I am explicitly saying we should embrace George Will conservatism and reject Sarah Palin conservatism.
Edited on Mar 16, 2011 at 11:06amJul '10
Re: The Ivy League: Don't Trust 'Em
Funny you should mention this.
Rush was just explaining to David Brooks that the Sharp Pantleg Crease that so impressed Brooks two and a half years ago, may have been indicitive of someone who wasn't working very hard. Similar to a farmer with soft, manicured hands.
Oct '10
Re: The Ivy League: Don't Trust 'Em
I am enjoying the anti-anti elitism debate, but I believe they are missing the point. Really the debate is Elites vs Reality (or evidence, or results, etc...). The American people are practical in nature.
I think its only fair that the people reject elites, since the elites are rejecting the people over health care, global warming, and NPR funding!
Feb '11
Re: The Ivy League: Don't Trust 'Em
Two points:
1) Before concluding that there is any trend underway, we would need to see how people have answered these same questions over time. And given how they worded the education question -- "Suppose you had two workers doing the same job for the same company. One had a higher level of education but the other one gets more done at work. Which worker should be paid more, or should they be paid the same amount?" -- I find it doubtful that 25 years ago you would have found lots of people saying "Oh, pay Poindexter more, definitely."
Not to mention the fact that this is generally how people get paid. The fact that you went to a prestigious school may be helpful when you are looking for that first job, as it serves as a kind of screening tool (however imperfect) for employers who have nothing else to go on at that point. But once you're in the work force, nobody really cares where you went to school. If you do your job well, you'll get paid more than someone who doesn't. (Unless you are in a unionized job, of course.)
(to be continued)
May '10
Re: The Ivy League: Don't Trust 'Em
As you say, this is good news. Very good news actually. American belief in the powers of the self-declared elites has always been moderated by a healthy skepticism. That belief in these "brands" is slipping indicates that people are paying attention.
The Ivies are no more perfect sources of wisdom that the elite newspapers, the NYTimes or Washington Post, for example, are perfect sources of truth.
And I'll offer a personal observation that there are people coming out of these elite Universities who are themselves very much invested in their alma mater's "elite" reputation, and like to wrap themselves in that glow. They are generally not the best to come out of those schools. As a rule of thumb, the more someone makes of their Ivy League connections, the more they should be ignored.
Feb '11
Re: The Ivy League: Don't Trust 'Em
I wish this trend included the legal world: lawyers are absolutely obsessed with law school rankings to the point they'll believe its better to have attended Harvard Law and have a mediocre career than to have gone to Southwestern (low ranking school in Los Angeles) and have an amazing string of trial wins. Since I'm from a family of lawyers, I hear this crap all the time...an attorney will check out the bio of an opposing counsel who---30 years ago!--went to some less-than-stellar law school (but who has somehow managed to become a zillionaire in the interim) and immediately write him off as an unworthy adversary.
Feb '11
Re: The Ivy League: Don't Trust 'Em
2) This seems like a bit of a straw man, anyway. Whoever said that the purpose of Ivy League schools is to produce "better workers?" I thought it has long been understood that Ivy League schools are pretty much devoted to providing a good liberal arts education for its own sake, and not to producing "better workers." Whether they do provide a good liberal arts education is another question. But my point is that we're judging them on the wrong criterion if we judge them by whether they produce better workers than non-Ivy League schools.
Jan '11
Re: The Ivy League: Don't Trust 'Em
So my diploma from Harvurd's no good anymore?
Dec '10
Re: The Ivy League: Don't Trust 'Em
Conversely, don't we have a few Ivy's here on Ricochet? If we're arguing a point and our hallowed friends have made poignant remarks on the subject don't we rely on them and their vine wrapped credentials to back us up? I think our problem is not so much with the institutions or their authoritativeness and more so with the insular liberal theology they now preach.
Nov '10
Re: The Ivy League: Don't Trust 'Em
Rob Long: It was predictable -- after years of Ivy League presidents, CEOs, bank presidents, and Supreme Court justices, Americans have learned a thing or two about that collection of fancy university graduates.
They don't trust 'em.
...says the Yalie.
Jan '11
Re: The Ivy League: Don't Trust 'Em
When I went to St. Joe's, we studied Plato. At Harvard, apparently, they study the same guy. At St. Joe's, though, it costs a fraction to acquire the same knowledge.