BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Elite Institutions

  
 
passer
20:08 / 09.03.04
Are elite institutions in and of themselves a bad idea? Does the evil lie in the current definition of elite rather than the idea? I’m personally focused on educational institutions, but that certainly doesn’t mean you have to be. As galling as this fact is to me: the names Harvard and Oxford on a degree do have value as fast tracks to influential positions. However, if admittance to these institutions by some magic transformation became egalitarian and merit based, would it okay to buy into the idea of an elite institution?

I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit since I work at what can be called an elite institution and I’ve just agreed to go work at another one for the next year. In my head, this is okay because I do bring a different background and opinion and I have dreams of shaping the minds of youths who by birth and, on few rare occasions, by merit have a higher chance of turning out to be world leaders. I’m just not convinced that I’m not dancing merrily on a road paved with good intentions.
 
 
Lurid Archive
21:10 / 09.03.04
I can't say I know much about Harvard, but I do know a little about Oxford. I think that the idea of Oxford, and this goes for Cambridge as well, as a centre of unegalitarian privilege is often misguided. Having gone there myself you might discount me as biased but I'll soldier on nonetheless.

OK, so let me clarify. The old boys network and the operation of class in Oxbridge are hugely diminished from what they were a few decades ago. Most academics, who are in charge of the admission process, feel strongly about their subject and want to select purely on the basis of merit. There is even feeling amongst those from non-state schools that Oxford and Cambridge practice affirmative action in favour of those from the state sector. They aren't entirely wrong by some measures, and quite wrong by others and, in fact, if you do a statistical analysis of class bias in Oxbridge, it turns out that they are more egalitarian than other Universities. (Last time I checked, St. Andrews was the worst offender, in a certain sense.)

Reality is much more compliated than we'd sometimes like. Elite institutions inherit the inequalities of society at large. One might even argue that they offer greater scope for a egalitarian effect than a more uniform, and more societally reflective, system.

This is not to say that elite institutions are an unalloyed good. They can work to reinforce hierarhies and take resources, especially in the public sphere, from the "standard". I suppose I'm saying, "it depends".
 
 
Grey Area
22:46 / 09.03.04
Elite institutions seem to evolve whether you want them or not. Any centre that develops a reputation for excellence will attract those who wish to excel in that institution's field, be it research, academic or cultural achievement. This starts a cycle whereby the inhabitants of the institution eventually come to believe that they are justified in only accepting individuals who meet their high standards into their midst, as the institution now has a reputation for excellence to maintain and increase.

The above is a long-winded way of getting to my point, which is that the evil lies more in our current perception of elitism. Elite institutions can often turn out to be the best source of life-changing inaights. The problem I think lies within the assembly of traditions and internal networks that these institutions seem to accumulate (Yale's Skull and Bones, The various Old Boys networks in Britain) and the popular perception of the same...
 
 
passer
13:50 / 10.03.04
I can't buy into the idea that elite institutions evolve whether you like them or not. Every institution that is currently elite has put a great deal of effort into establishing and maintaining that position.

If it were absolutely clear that membership in Skull and Bones guarantees influence and that membership in Skull and Bones was based entirely on intelligence and political skill would skull and bones be great? There are people that argue that it is just that. Most secret societies at Yale are very careful about diversity of membership and have been for the last 15 years, does this mitigate the issues a secret society raises?
 
 
Grand Panjandrum of the Pointless
19:13 / 10.03.04
The problem with elite institutions is that they tend to be parochial and mistake their parish for the world.
I grew up in Cambridge amongst academics' kids. All of my close friends (admittedly the geeky portion of my school year) went to Oxbridge. The idea that there might be other universities worth going to didn't really occur. Having studied at and lived in one of these places and known people from the others, I think it is fair to say that the worldview some of them inculcate is not the broadest possible. I remember asking someone studying Russian at Oxford whether they would be spending any time in Russia while studying Russian. Blank Stare. Probably in MI6 by now.
Of course it would be a mistake to think that everyone going to Oxbridge is as cloistered as myself and my peers. But there are certainly a frightening number of people about who hold surprisingly irrational beliefs about the quality of a Cambridge education. The worst ones are often those who came from elsewhere and fought hardest to get in. No one wants to believe they wasted their effort.
I myself went to London for undergrad, then came back for a Master's. It was also interesting to note how many of the other postgrads came from other 'elite' institutions. There definitely seems to be an informal system whereby these places work together to reinforce status- for instance there are a lot of collaborative projects between the two Cambridges.

'Great' academic institutions tend to assemble the world's best researchers. They are not always the best teachers. Stories abound. Here are a few:
There was a case in Cambridge of an appalling lecturer who, when accused of being a bad teacher, responded that his job title was 'Lecturer' and that therefore his job was lecturing, not teaching, and so, frankly, he didn't give a toss, since he couldn't be fired. Another, pissed off about some academic thing or other, used half of his (biology) lecture course to declaim Beat Poetry in order to make a point to the academic hierarchy.
A friend in Oxford told me a story about some tourists who dropped into the Porters' Lodge of his college to complain about the tramp passed out in the Quad. Who turned out to be the Master.

The key to a great education is money, good libraries and tolerance. The idea that socializing with youthful Great Minds in an atmosphere of inebriated self-congratulation helps is misguided, because it is a fantasy. Most of the Great Minds present in academia actually spent their time in seclusion. Cf Newton, Wittgenstein and many others. So to my mind the only true meaning of 'elite' institution is 'Institution that produces powerful political cliques'. It is true that such institutions also tend to be the ones with the money and the libraries and the tolerance. But I think this will become less true (at least in the first world) as more material becomes available electronically.
 
  
Add Your Reply