I thought about writing a letter to the New York Times, but I know my chances of getting it accepted. A piece run yesterday in said periodical on elite college admissions policies, which favor the affluent, presented an argument frequently used in defense: high-performing colleges are faced with the problem that the highest achieving students are affluent. I’m here to call shenanigans on that. I don’t often state explicitly what my background is here on this blog, knowing as I do that I had white privilege on my side, but this admissions reasoning is elitist to the hilt. I grew up in a poverty-level household and yet when I reached college it was only to have professor after professor marvel at how well I did in their classes. My GPA at graduation was 3.85, partially brought down by “freshman orientation” and senior ennui. After graduating summa cum laude, I graduated seminary magna cum laude. My doctorate was with a major European research university that didn’t use the cum laude system.
In short, a guy from a non-affluent background can succeed academically. Professors who think otherwise don’t know what they might be missing. There is a bias against the poor that assumes that intelligence is bred, not an innate ability. My academic track-record demonstrates that this bias has no expiration date. Despite my record of achievement, I was routinely passed over for positions at universities and colleges, many of them elite. I used to keep my rejection letters but the file was getting pretty heavy to lift. An academic unknown, I didn’t have connections in “the club” and was asked to check my working-class abilities at the door. I’ll confess when I see such reasoning as “we can’t afford to take chances on the poor” my blood begins to boil.
Some of the smartest people I know never attended college. Even as a child I could tell if someone was capable of deep thought or not. I didn’t know many college-educated people; my social circle was among blue collars. Clergy were the few exceptions, and not all of them had attended college. Nevertheless, I could see what admissions committees (I used to serve on one) call “special intelligence.” I also saw how terribly petty the discussions could be when it came to admissions. Try as I might, I just can’t feel sorry for those in higher education who feel trapped by their own success. There are gems located in mountains, even if they tend to be buried under tons of plain rock. Admission teams admit those most like themselves. Thus it has always been. And we are poorer as a society because of it.