Larry Summers response to your question on the podcast comparing Harvard's treatment of Jews in the 1920s to its treatment of Asians today was just historically wrong! The genteel and muted documentation of today's education administrators compared to the blatantly anti-Semitic phrasings of a century ago just highlights the differences in the way people spoke then and now -- public Americans spoke and wrote much more frankly and colorfully then. Today polite anti-Semites and racists are much more careful about what they say and write. Style has changed, but not the prejudice.
Good question - I suspect they could but I don’t know for sure. The problem I see with that is that they’d need to filter through all the applicants by getting them all to take the exam just to get at the gems. I’m not sure it would be practicable. What I think might work best is having a business owner challenge the legal precedent, I think this Supreme Court might be sympathetic. Maybe I’ll kick back with a few beers this weekend and decide I’m the business owner to do it.
As pointed out by others, Glenn Loury and others are having richer more interesting discussions on this topic then LS and are taking those conversations farther afield than the somewhat limited navel gazing perspective of the higher education institutions and those that lead them. I commend the following thoughtful piece recently linked to by GL. His last para particularly resonated.
As noted by Yan Shen in an earlier comment, some like Roland Fryer are pushing challenging proposals to impact issues with our education system much earlier in the pipeline then the after the fact solutions so often easy buttoned by our current policy makers. Yes, after the fact ideas like increasing class size should be implemented - and "double yes", abandoning testing is absolutely a road to mediocrity or worse. However, the questions and the issues are much bigger than the reputation and survival of the elite institutions that LS perhaps naturally seems to be most interested in helping
Does anyone seriously think that Harvard is in the business of educating people? The Ivies’ job is to create a ruling elite that has been carefully indoctrinated in correct thought. They cannot do this without legacies. In fact it may be dangerous to try.
You talked about criteria for admissions. What about holding a job? A kid who works throughout high school in order to save for college should count.
Also you talked about expanding class size. Perfect example is University of Notre Dame. The size of the campus has expanded at least fivefold since I graduated 45 years ago. But the number of undergraduate students has grown by less than 50%.
That means many, many other buildings, which by the way are all staffed and paid by the university, rather than expansion of the student population which is the primary goal. Or used to be.
I’m actually in Boston right now touring schools with my teenage boys. I saw four schools:
1) MIT: Complete meritocracy, intense, and not for my children. Future leaders in science, tech, Econ etc.. are going to come out of that institution. It was impressive and really the place for the best of the best.
2) Harvard: arrogant, wonderful location and amazing network/opportunities for students and graduates.
3) Boston College: gorgeous campus with pristine academic buildings, Jesuit focus on service and community, preppy and idealistic kids. They seemed like they were really having fun.
4) Tufts: graduates will be completely unprepared for reality. Totally coddled. Tour focused on all the segregated services/spaces the school offered (I know they all offer these safe places). Way too much money spent on administrators. My husband and my boys left there wondering why anybody would ever go there.
It’s always interesting when elites want to change the rules after they and their families have benefited from the rules they want to change! Bari asked the right question, “Why didn’t he change the rules when he led Harvard?” His non answer exposes his hypocrisy.
We are in agreement. I hate to see talent wasted and those two have been gifted with much and are young enough to truly make a difference. It is very sad. Until leaders like this step up in the black community and provide direction instead of just doing the same old schtick, nothing will change
I know this is hard. It has been a decades long slide but their ability to set a direction and framework is really needed. If he wants a legacy of being more than just the first black president (big deal), he needs to do more
He is so right about the size of the student body. The US population has grown. There are far more international students. There are far more students willing to travel a long distance for certain schools. And there are many more slots that need to be filled. Yes women's athletics is great, but it also means there are far fewer slots for generalists or women with non sports interests than was the case 30 or 40 years ago.
These days, nearly all sports require a significant investment to get to a D1 college level. For D3, not so much. This is a big change from even 20 years ago. Families make a lot of sacrifices to pay for personalized coaching, travel teams, the costs for the family to go to the travel events, and more. In addition to the cash costs, there's also the time cost for families. It is really stressful!
While my own experience is similar (I wrote my own essays and so did my kids), I am also well aware of many other cases. Having done admissions at the graduate level for many years, I know many essays are ghost-written. Personal interviews are different - harder to fake. Still, putting on the same scale something that takes 4 years to build up (GPA, SAT) with something that takes a few hours (essays or an interview) just seems wrong.
This conversation was packed with prompts for multiple lengthy debates. While I respect the accomplishment of being president of Harvard and L. Summers’ many other accomplishments, I can so easily disagree with him. I may not have his breadth of understanding on issues of higher education, but we should be clear that great brilliance in one discipline does not guarantee brilliance in all disciplines. We live in a time, when the fabulously wealthy and well-connected assume that the privilege of a high-born pulpit, and they assume they can be vocal experts in everything. Bill Gates, Elon Muck, and other intellectual titans of industry come to mind.
The first issue: it is more likely the true middle class that has the greatest disadvantage in paying for elite higher education. Assuming comparable SAT’s: The rich pay full fare; The poor will usually great a full ride; and the middle class are left taking out loans because they are not rich enough nor poor enough.
The second issue: Why would the eight name brand “Brooks Brothers” schools need to grow with the population. These schools are already fabulously wealthy and have undue influence in national affairs. Why not grow or found other schools? Consider great courses with great professors; a classroom of 15 to 30 is much different learning experience than a lecture halls of hundreds. I believe that schools have a sweet spot of not being too small or too large before they become corporate behemoths.
Thirdly: no one discusses true diversity anymore: world view and philosophical diversity. Would Harvard admission readers rate a student who proudly listed working in a pro-life, border security, or MAGA campaign as equal to virtue signaling progressive youth who worked in a soup kitchen, planned parenthood, or Bernie Saunders campaign? Many of these youth struggle to perform authenticity for the benefit of the readers. Elite universities have become echo-chambers of progressivism.
Regarding elite sports: well elite colleges are elite, so why the discrimination against fencing, squash, crew, and lacrosse? If elite sports offend, then don’t go to an elite school.
Lastly: elite institutions stop being elite if they surrender meritocracy.
The conversation gets even more dangerous: who is Lawrence Summers? He was the brave contrarian who dared speak the heresy against the postmoderns that there are no cognitive differences between men and women, and this led to his fall from grace at Harvard. This was his greatest moment. The discussion could have and should have been more nuanced, as attempted by Charles Murray in “The Bell Curve”. It is not a question of intellectual superiority but of cognitive styles and complementary strengths and weakness that flowed with evolution, as in women having greater olfaction and higher oxytocin levels than men, thus making making women more aware of the smell of the babies and capable of greater warmth and empathy.
Whoa is the young, hard-working young man who, unfortunately, was born to parents who worked hard, saved their money and sent him overseas in high school to experience a different culture/learn about a different civilization. A young man who may also happen to play hockey or golf (how dare he!)...After all, I don't believe it's only rowing and fencing that require resources (has anyone looked at the cost of club volleyball). It's appalling to me that Mr. Summers would suggest that colleges and universities that are supposed to be diversifying, are to now discriminate by sport? Everyone who plays football and basketball are welcome. Others need not apply? It feels like there are a lot of assumptions at work here. No?
This conversation was packed with prompts for multiple lengthy debates. While I respect the accomplishment of being president of Harvard and L. Summers’ many other accomplishments, I can so easily disagree with him. I may not have his breadth of understanding on issues of higher education, but we should be clear that great brilliance in one discipline does not guarantee brilliance in all disciplines. We live in a time, when the fabulously wealthy and well-connected assume that the privilege of a high-born pulpit, and they assume they can be vocal experts in everything. Bill Gates, Elon Muck, and other intellectual titans of industry come to mind.
The first issue: it is more likely the true middle class that has the greatest disadvantage in paying for elite higher education. Assuming comparable SAT’s: The rich pay full fare; The poor will usually great a full ride; and the middle class are left taking out loans because they are not rich enough nor poor enough.
The second issue: Why would the eight name brand “Brooks Brothers” schools need to grow with the population. These schools are already fabulously wealthy and have undue influence in national affairs. Why not grow or found other schools? Consider great courses with great professors; a classroom of 15 to 30 is much different learning experience than a lecture halls of hundreds. I believe that schools have a sweet spot of not being too small or too large before they become corporate behemoths.
Thirdly: no one discusses true diversity anymore: world view and philosophical diversity. Would Harvard admission readers rate a student who proudly listed working in a pro-life, border security, or MAGA campaign as equal to virtue signaling progressive youth who worked in a soup kitchen, planned parenthood, or Bernie Saunders campaign? Many of these youth struggle to perform authenticity for the benefit of the readers. Elite universities have become echo-chambers of progressivism.
Regarding elite sports: well elite colleges are elite, so why the discrimination against fencing, squash, crew, and lacrosse? If elite sports offend, then don’t go to an elite school.
Lastly: elite institutions stop being elite if they surrender meritocracy.
The conversation gets even more dangerous: who is Lawrence Summers? He was the brave contrarian who dared speak the heresy against the postmoderns that there are no cognitive differences between men and women, and this led to his fall from grace at Harvard. This was his greatest moment. The discussion could have and should have been more nuanced, as attempted by Charles Murray in “The Bell Curve”. It is not a question of intellectual superiority but of cognitive styles and complementary strengths and weakness that flowed with evolution, as in women having greater olfaction and higher oxytocin levels than men, thus making making women more aware of the smell of the babies and capable of greater warmth and empathy.
This conversation was packed with prompts for multiple lengthy debates. While I respect the accomplishment of being president of Harvard and L. Summers’ many other accomplishments, I can so easily disagree with him. I may not have his breadth of understanding on issues of higher education, but we should be clear that great brilliance in one discipline does not guarantee brilliance in all disciplines. We live in a time, when the fabulously wealthy and well-connected assume the privilege of a high-born pulpit, and they assume they can be vocal experts in everything. Bill Gates, Elon Muck, and other intellectual titans of industry come to mind.
The first issue: it is more likely the true middle class that has the greatest disadvantage in paying for elite higher education. Assuming comparable SAT’s: The rich pay full fare; The poor will usually great a full ride; and the middle class are left taking out loans because they are not rich enough nor poor enough.
The second issue: Why would the eight name brand “Brooks Brothers” schools need to grow with the population. These schools are already fabulously wealthy and have undue influence in national affairs. Why not grow or found other schools? Consider great courses with great professors; a classroom of 15 to 30 is much different learning experience than a lecture halls of hundreds. I believe that schools have a sweet spot of not being too small or too large before they become corporate behemoths.
Thirdly: no one discusses true diversity anymore: world view and philosophical diversity. Would Harvard admission readers rate a student who proudly listed working in a pro-life, border security, or MAGA campaign as equal to virtue signaling progressive youth who worked in a soup kitchen, planned parenthood, or Bernie Saunders campaign? Many of these youth struggle to perform authenticity for the benefit of the readers. Elite universities have become echo-chambers of progressivism.
Regarding elite sports: well elite colleges are elite, so why the discrimination against fencing, squash, crew, and lacrosse? If elite sports offend, then don’t go to an elite school.
Lastly: elite institutions stop being elite if they surrender meritocracy.
The conversation gets even more dangerous: who is Lawrence Summers? He was the brave contrarian who dared speak the heresy against the postmoderns that there are no cognitive differences between men and women, and this led to his fall from grace at Harvard. This was his greatest moment. The discussion could have and should have been more nuanced, as attempted by Charles Murray in “The Bell Curve”. It is not a question of intellectual superiority but of cognitive styles and complementary strengths and weakness that flowed with evolution, as in women having greater olfaction and higher oxytocin levels than men, thus making making women more aware of the smell of the babies and capable of greater warmth and empathy.
Larry Summers response to your question on the podcast comparing Harvard's treatment of Jews in the 1920s to its treatment of Asians today was just historically wrong! The genteel and muted documentation of today's education administrators compared to the blatantly anti-Semitic phrasings of a century ago just highlights the differences in the way people spoke then and now -- public Americans spoke and wrote much more frankly and colorfully then. Today polite anti-Semites and racists are much more careful about what they say and write. Style has changed, but not the prejudice.
Good question - I suspect they could but I don’t know for sure. The problem I see with that is that they’d need to filter through all the applicants by getting them all to take the exam just to get at the gems. I’m not sure it would be practicable. What I think might work best is having a business owner challenge the legal precedent, I think this Supreme Court might be sympathetic. Maybe I’ll kick back with a few beers this weekend and decide I’m the business owner to do it.
As pointed out by others, Glenn Loury and others are having richer more interesting discussions on this topic then LS and are taking those conversations farther afield than the somewhat limited navel gazing perspective of the higher education institutions and those that lead them. I commend the following thoughtful piece recently linked to by GL. His last para particularly resonated.
https://historyunfolding.blogspot.com/2023/07/the-affirmative-action-debate-part-iii.html?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
As noted by Yan Shen in an earlier comment, some like Roland Fryer are pushing challenging proposals to impact issues with our education system much earlier in the pipeline then the after the fact solutions so often easy buttoned by our current policy makers. Yes, after the fact ideas like increasing class size should be implemented - and "double yes", abandoning testing is absolutely a road to mediocrity or worse. However, the questions and the issues are much bigger than the reputation and survival of the elite institutions that LS perhaps naturally seems to be most interested in helping
Does anyone seriously think that Harvard is in the business of educating people? The Ivies’ job is to create a ruling elite that has been carefully indoctrinated in correct thought. They cannot do this without legacies. In fact it may be dangerous to try.
why dangerous?
The NATION magazine just ran a hit piece on Larry Summers., along with others at Harvard, possibly all Jewish, as a friend of Jeffrey Epstein,
You talked about criteria for admissions. What about holding a job? A kid who works throughout high school in order to save for college should count.
Also you talked about expanding class size. Perfect example is University of Notre Dame. The size of the campus has expanded at least fivefold since I graduated 45 years ago. But the number of undergraduate students has grown by less than 50%.
That means many, many other buildings, which by the way are all staffed and paid by the university, rather than expansion of the student population which is the primary goal. Or used to be.
I’m actually in Boston right now touring schools with my teenage boys. I saw four schools:
1) MIT: Complete meritocracy, intense, and not for my children. Future leaders in science, tech, Econ etc.. are going to come out of that institution. It was impressive and really the place for the best of the best.
2) Harvard: arrogant, wonderful location and amazing network/opportunities for students and graduates.
3) Boston College: gorgeous campus with pristine academic buildings, Jesuit focus on service and community, preppy and idealistic kids. They seemed like they were really having fun.
4) Tufts: graduates will be completely unprepared for reality. Totally coddled. Tour focused on all the segregated services/spaces the school offered (I know they all offer these safe places). Way too much money spent on administrators. My husband and my boys left there wondering why anybody would ever go there.
Elite College admissions is a business!
We avoided Boston. Too much group think on too many topics including at MIT. Many schools with double camel
hump socioeconomic leading to lack of campus cohesion. Also agree with too much admin bloat everywhere!
It’s always interesting when elites want to change the rules after they and their families have benefited from the rules they want to change! Bari asked the right question, “Why didn’t he change the rules when he led Harvard?” His non answer exposes his hypocrisy.
We are in agreement. I hate to see talent wasted and those two have been gifted with much and are young enough to truly make a difference. It is very sad. Until leaders like this step up in the black community and provide direction instead of just doing the same old schtick, nothing will change
I know this is hard. It has been a decades long slide but their ability to set a direction and framework is really needed. If he wants a legacy of being more than just the first black president (big deal), he needs to do more
He is so right about the size of the student body. The US population has grown. There are far more international students. There are far more students willing to travel a long distance for certain schools. And there are many more slots that need to be filled. Yes women's athletics is great, but it also means there are far fewer slots for generalists or women with non sports interests than was the case 30 or 40 years ago.
These days, nearly all sports require a significant investment to get to a D1 college level. For D3, not so much. This is a big change from even 20 years ago. Families make a lot of sacrifices to pay for personalized coaching, travel teams, the costs for the family to go to the travel events, and more. In addition to the cash costs, there's also the time cost for families. It is really stressful!
While my own experience is similar (I wrote my own essays and so did my kids), I am also well aware of many other cases. Having done admissions at the graduate level for many years, I know many essays are ghost-written. Personal interviews are different - harder to fake. Still, putting on the same scale something that takes 4 years to build up (GPA, SAT) with something that takes a few hours (essays or an interview) just seems wrong.
This conversation was packed with prompts for multiple lengthy debates. While I respect the accomplishment of being president of Harvard and L. Summers’ many other accomplishments, I can so easily disagree with him. I may not have his breadth of understanding on issues of higher education, but we should be clear that great brilliance in one discipline does not guarantee brilliance in all disciplines. We live in a time, when the fabulously wealthy and well-connected assume that the privilege of a high-born pulpit, and they assume they can be vocal experts in everything. Bill Gates, Elon Muck, and other intellectual titans of industry come to mind.
The first issue: it is more likely the true middle class that has the greatest disadvantage in paying for elite higher education. Assuming comparable SAT’s: The rich pay full fare; The poor will usually great a full ride; and the middle class are left taking out loans because they are not rich enough nor poor enough.
The second issue: Why would the eight name brand “Brooks Brothers” schools need to grow with the population. These schools are already fabulously wealthy and have undue influence in national affairs. Why not grow or found other schools? Consider great courses with great professors; a classroom of 15 to 30 is much different learning experience than a lecture halls of hundreds. I believe that schools have a sweet spot of not being too small or too large before they become corporate behemoths.
Thirdly: no one discusses true diversity anymore: world view and philosophical diversity. Would Harvard admission readers rate a student who proudly listed working in a pro-life, border security, or MAGA campaign as equal to virtue signaling progressive youth who worked in a soup kitchen, planned parenthood, or Bernie Saunders campaign? Many of these youth struggle to perform authenticity for the benefit of the readers. Elite universities have become echo-chambers of progressivism.
Regarding elite sports: well elite colleges are elite, so why the discrimination against fencing, squash, crew, and lacrosse? If elite sports offend, then don’t go to an elite school.
Lastly: elite institutions stop being elite if they surrender meritocracy.
The conversation gets even more dangerous: who is Lawrence Summers? He was the brave contrarian who dared speak the heresy against the postmoderns that there are no cognitive differences between men and women, and this led to his fall from grace at Harvard. This was his greatest moment. The discussion could have and should have been more nuanced, as attempted by Charles Murray in “The Bell Curve”. It is not a question of intellectual superiority but of cognitive styles and complementary strengths and weakness that flowed with evolution, as in women having greater olfaction and higher oxytocin levels than men, thus making making women more aware of the smell of the babies and capable of greater warmth and empathy.
https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Nontech.pdf?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20230724&instance_id=98292&nl=the-morning®i_id=152348616&segment_id=140117&te=1&user_id=b36690bcbc34a99f5ac3366f7ba45e4d
You are right. The middle class is the least likely to attend the top 12 schools.
Whoa is the young, hard-working young man who, unfortunately, was born to parents who worked hard, saved their money and sent him overseas in high school to experience a different culture/learn about a different civilization. A young man who may also happen to play hockey or golf (how dare he!)...After all, I don't believe it's only rowing and fencing that require resources (has anyone looked at the cost of club volleyball). It's appalling to me that Mr. Summers would suggest that colleges and universities that are supposed to be diversifying, are to now discriminate by sport? Everyone who plays football and basketball are welcome. Others need not apply? It feels like there are a lot of assumptions at work here. No?
This conversation was packed with prompts for multiple lengthy debates. While I respect the accomplishment of being president of Harvard and L. Summers’ many other accomplishments, I can so easily disagree with him. I may not have his breadth of understanding on issues of higher education, but we should be clear that great brilliance in one discipline does not guarantee brilliance in all disciplines. We live in a time, when the fabulously wealthy and well-connected assume that the privilege of a high-born pulpit, and they assume they can be vocal experts in everything. Bill Gates, Elon Muck, and other intellectual titans of industry come to mind.
The first issue: it is more likely the true middle class that has the greatest disadvantage in paying for elite higher education. Assuming comparable SAT’s: The rich pay full fare; The poor will usually great a full ride; and the middle class are left taking out loans because they are not rich enough nor poor enough.
The second issue: Why would the eight name brand “Brooks Brothers” schools need to grow with the population. These schools are already fabulously wealthy and have undue influence in national affairs. Why not grow or found other schools? Consider great courses with great professors; a classroom of 15 to 30 is much different learning experience than a lecture halls of hundreds. I believe that schools have a sweet spot of not being too small or too large before they become corporate behemoths.
Thirdly: no one discusses true diversity anymore: world view and philosophical diversity. Would Harvard admission readers rate a student who proudly listed working in a pro-life, border security, or MAGA campaign as equal to virtue signaling progressive youth who worked in a soup kitchen, planned parenthood, or Bernie Saunders campaign? Many of these youth struggle to perform authenticity for the benefit of the readers. Elite universities have become echo-chambers of progressivism.
Regarding elite sports: well elite colleges are elite, so why the discrimination against fencing, squash, crew, and lacrosse? If elite sports offend, then don’t go to an elite school.
Lastly: elite institutions stop being elite if they surrender meritocracy.
The conversation gets even more dangerous: who is Lawrence Summers? He was the brave contrarian who dared speak the heresy against the postmoderns that there are no cognitive differences between men and women, and this led to his fall from grace at Harvard. This was his greatest moment. The discussion could have and should have been more nuanced, as attempted by Charles Murray in “The Bell Curve”. It is not a question of intellectual superiority but of cognitive styles and complementary strengths and weakness that flowed with evolution, as in women having greater olfaction and higher oxytocin levels than men, thus making making women more aware of the smell of the babies and capable of greater warmth and empathy.
This conversation was packed with prompts for multiple lengthy debates. While I respect the accomplishment of being president of Harvard and L. Summers’ many other accomplishments, I can so easily disagree with him. I may not have his breadth of understanding on issues of higher education, but we should be clear that great brilliance in one discipline does not guarantee brilliance in all disciplines. We live in a time, when the fabulously wealthy and well-connected assume the privilege of a high-born pulpit, and they assume they can be vocal experts in everything. Bill Gates, Elon Muck, and other intellectual titans of industry come to mind.
The first issue: it is more likely the true middle class that has the greatest disadvantage in paying for elite higher education. Assuming comparable SAT’s: The rich pay full fare; The poor will usually great a full ride; and the middle class are left taking out loans because they are not rich enough nor poor enough.
The second issue: Why would the eight name brand “Brooks Brothers” schools need to grow with the population. These schools are already fabulously wealthy and have undue influence in national affairs. Why not grow or found other schools? Consider great courses with great professors; a classroom of 15 to 30 is much different learning experience than a lecture halls of hundreds. I believe that schools have a sweet spot of not being too small or too large before they become corporate behemoths.
Thirdly: no one discusses true diversity anymore: world view and philosophical diversity. Would Harvard admission readers rate a student who proudly listed working in a pro-life, border security, or MAGA campaign as equal to virtue signaling progressive youth who worked in a soup kitchen, planned parenthood, or Bernie Saunders campaign? Many of these youth struggle to perform authenticity for the benefit of the readers. Elite universities have become echo-chambers of progressivism.
Regarding elite sports: well elite colleges are elite, so why the discrimination against fencing, squash, crew, and lacrosse? If elite sports offend, then don’t go to an elite school.
Lastly: elite institutions stop being elite if they surrender meritocracy.
The conversation gets even more dangerous: who is Lawrence Summers? He was the brave contrarian who dared speak the heresy against the postmoderns that there are no cognitive differences between men and women, and this led to his fall from grace at Harvard. This was his greatest moment. The discussion could have and should have been more nuanced, as attempted by Charles Murray in “The Bell Curve”. It is not a question of intellectual superiority but of cognitive styles and complementary strengths and weakness that flowed with evolution, as in women having greater olfaction and higher oxytocin levels than men, thus making making women more aware of the smell of the babies and capable of greater warmth and empathy.