20140827.0638

I am late to come to the topic, I know, but I was doing a bit of reading and ran into commentaries surrounding William Deresiewicz's Excellent Sheep. I have not read the book itself, although I begin to think that I will, but in reading the commentaries--including at least one written by the man himself--I begin to think that there is something missing from his analysis. For in his comments, he seems to be drawing a distinction between non-flagship public colleges and elite schools in terms of insulation and cliquishness, of programmatization and technocratization, and I do not think that is correct. I see and have seen such things among my own students at second-tier state schools and even a for-profit two-year technical college; they often conceive of themselves in no terms but the grades received, and they insist upon--and are often afforded--multiple chances to do things and exemptions from them. (This is aside from such as result from ADA or other protected statuses, with which I have no truck.)

This is not to say, of course, that there are not immense differences between elite and non-elite schools, or that those Deresiewicz identifies are wholly inaccurate. He reports an overwhelming abundance of upper-middle- and upper-socioeconomic-status students at the Ivies and posits a broader cross-section among other schools, and I would have to agree with that. But I have noticed that those from similar socioeconomic backgrounds tend to group together, even at "lesser" institutions; the wealthy tend to associate with the wealthy, the working-class with the working-class, and there are many cues (sartorial included) to indicate which is which. (It remains true among the professoriate, as well.) Deresiewicz also indicates differences in bureaucratic structures--and he is not wrong. State schools have state hierarchies above the schools in addition to the relatively traditional stratification of the collegiate environment, while private institutions have far less oversight in that regard. And money is an issue, although elite public universities are not exactly short on funding, and there are occasional gifts of great value even to non-elite schools.

If I am reading correctly, and I may well not be, Deresiewicz idealizes the student at the public university, not unlike the idealization of the rural life in pastoral works. The truth is not as pleasant as he might like to believe. There are scads of advisors and assistance centers run by many of the schools and many of the units within and associated with the schools. (Those of various Greek entities and athletics programs come to mind.) There are appeals processes in place that can string out decisions for weeks and months, crossing the boundaries of terms and dragging those involved back and forth across their campuses. There are meddling parents who push their students to fight for their "rights" in administrative channels (and if they would spend half so much effort on their studies...). There are the legions of adjuncts undertrodden whose work is routinely set aside or overturned by those lucky enough to have stumbled into authority. There are even the occasional threats of legal action. It is hardly idyllic.