Potentially conformist minds don’t seem to want to know: Yesterday, we mentioned William Deresiewicz’s rumination about the Ivy League.
The former Yale professor’s piece appears in The New Republic.
By this morning, we were already regretting the fact that we were so snarky about the publication of the piece. Then, we read Alexandra Petri’s treatment of the piece in the Washington Post.
We have no way of judging Deresiewicz’s overall portrait of today’s Ivy League students. From our perspective, his portrait did make us think of the lazy, conformist work being produced by the many Ivy League 20-somethings being hired to replace the outgoing Sam-and-Cokies.
The Sam-and-Cokies (and the Chrisses, the Maureens and the Tims) have created a deeply horrible journalistic legacy. We can’t say we see a lot of pushback emerging from the new hires.
One such hire is Petri, Harvard 2010 (sic). Pretty much straight outta Harvard, she was hired by the Post to do a weekly semi-humorous column and a regular blog.
As always, we hate to be negative. But basically, at the tender age of perhaps 25, Petri is already Art Buchwald.
This morning, Petri discusses the Deresiewicz piece. As she starts, so does the snark, for better or worse.
This is the way the piece begins in the hard-copy Post. For the on-line version, click here:
PETRI (7/26/14): You need to stop sending your kids to Ivy League schools.Was Deresiewicz once an elitist twit? Is it possible that he is different now?
In brief, according to a piece in the most recent New Republic by William Deresiewicz, who taught at Yale for 10 years, the students who are sent there are conformist, over-privileged overachievers. They emerge from homogeneous backgrounds and grow up to be elitist little twits. (He also went to an Ivy League school, but he is different now.)
[...]
When they get in, they learn nothing because they are too terrified of failure to study things they do not already know. They develop the firm conviction that, if you march to the beat of a different drummer, you are doing something wrong. We are all listening to this drummer for a reason. Your drummer must be screwing up.
When they get out, they are obsessed with status and give society less than they might have. Or something. The point is that the education is not value-added. If anything, it is value-subtracted. It produces conformist, unimaginative people who are desperate for outside approval.
As she starts, Petri seems to snark at these possibilities. Later, her use of the phrase “Or something” signals that she can’t make out what the former Yale prof is saying.
In truth, the former Yale prof is making a plea that tracks at least to Thoreau. But if you read Petri’s entire piece, you’ll see that she’s having a difficult time taking his premises seriously.
How accurate is Deresiewicz’s portrait of these (Ivy League) kids today? We have no way of knowing.
His portrait did make us think of the lazy, conformist work which is frequently being done by the press corps’ large collection of Ivy League 20-somethings. With that in mind, let’s speculate about Petri herself for a moment:
We have no doubt that Petri is a perfectly decent person. In our experience, most people are.
That said, she certainly comes from a “privileged” background. Before she went to Harvard, she prepped at Washington's National Cathedral School. She was growing up in D.C. because her father, Wisconsin congressman Tom Petri, has been serving in the House since 1979.
Obviously, there’s nothing “wrong” with any of that. But let’s put Deresiewicz’s portrait to the test:
Is it possible that Petri is perhaps a bit of a “conformist,” even perhaps a tiny bit of an “elitist twit?” Much more to the point, is it possible that she is currently “giving society less than she might have?”
To state the obvious, we’re all giving society less than we might have. This morning, though, Petri seems to be having a very hard time conceiving of the possibility that her elite upbringing may have channeled her in an “elitist/conformist” direction.
We went to Harvard too, in the street-fighting Class of 1969. In those days, of course, we kids were so busy stopping a war that we had no time to acquire the undesirable traits described by Deresiewicz.
It’s also true that, at that time, Harvard was experimenting (we’ve been told) with admission procedures which were more working-class friendly. Of our own nine-member roommate group, we only know for sure that two of the nine had parents who went to college.
(The number could be as high as six out of nine. If we had to guess, we would guess that the number was four or five.)
Plainly, we Ivy League kids were better then. That returns us to the travails of these Ivy League grads today.
Many news orgs are loading up on 20-something Ivy grads, preferably from Yale. In a mark of contempt for the lives and interests of low-income kids, they throw them right onto the public school beat, despite their lack of experience and their obvious lack of technical competence.
Are today’s Ivy League grads “conformist,” perhaps a smidge “elitist?” On the whole, we have no idea.
Within the upper-end press corps, though, we’d say that portrait tends to fit the work of these highly-credentialed, less than brilliant journalists. This morning, Petri seems to be having a difficult time coming to terms with such unlikely ideas.
Still writing for the Crimson: This May, Petri wrote a piece for the Harvard Crimson. In best tongue-in-cheek manner, she advised today’s Harvard kids on the best ways to deal with an impending problem:
In the future, how should they deal with the highly visible successes of other Harvard grads? This was the inevitable problem Petri chose to explore.
In such humble-bragging ways, grads like Petri, tongue in cheek, reinforce the very values Deresiewicz was critiquing.
Today, Petri can’t quite make out what Deresiewicz was saying! So it eternally tends to go as the world eternally turns.
She is obviously thinking about the piece at some level. She chose to write a dismissive editorial about it, so she is nettled by it, which suggests it did get to her and she gave it enough thought to react defensively to it. That may result in some change down the road a bit.
ReplyDeleteA while back I did a postdoc at Harvard. They gave us a job-hunting workshop in which none of the panelists had ever actively applied for a job themselves -- all had been recruited while grad students. They mostly talked about how to answer the question "Why would some from Harvard want to work here?" as if interviewers would expect a Harvard grad to consider any place not Ivy to be slumming, despite the difficulty finding academic jobs, even for Harvard grads. They strongly communicated that having to seek a job was definitely gauche.
Around that same time a grad student in another lab committed suicide because her mentor was shunning her for not producing work sufficiently brilliant to merit his support. She decided she had no future without his approval. Conformist does not describe such an environment -- it is way too mild a term.
It is hard to imagine the oddness of the kind of environment these kids are coming out of, compared to where most of us live.
The practice of shunning may arise from East Coast religious communities (Quakers, Puritans, Amish). It punishes nonconformity by withholding inclusion, a basic human need. It thrives in prep schools and Ivy league colleges but is much less prevalent elsewhere.
DeleteNote: descendants of Puritans and Quakers (a variant of Puritans) et al. moved west. Some changes happened in that move, but not many that are very profound. This is NOT simply a northeast issue.
DeleteShunning survives as "the silent treatment".
DeleteShunning is far prefereable to the hate preached by pseudo-liberals, which is almost as bad as the silence practiced by pseudo-journalists in correcting the narratives in the jihads
Deleterepeated by those serving the plutocrats.
Two Harvard twits yammer about some Yalie's shit. This has all the promise of another Tal Fortang series.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing I know for certain about Bob's Harvard roomate group is that two of them were models for the insufferable main character of Love Story. One played himself in the movie. The other lost the Presidency because of it. To a Yale man.
What an incredible jerk you are.
DeleteTommy Lee Jones played a very small role in Love Story.
DeleteName one thing I said which is not true and why. If you can't then I am not the jerk.
DeleteWhat a jerk I am.
DeleteIt depends. Many people think Tommy Lee Jones almost always plays himself regardless of the character.
DeleteAnd, according to the IMDB he is Boxcar Willie's first cousin. Boxcar Bob should have told us that.
DeleteWhy does everyone always overlook the fine performance put in by Ray Milland as Albert Gore, Sr.?
DeleteThe late great Roger Ebert said Love Story the book sucked, but Love Story the movie was great.
DeleteSecond best of all time in my estimation.
DeleteJoe Bob Briggs was/is better although Ebert had better range in his reviews and was more politcally correct.
No less a great actor than Charlton Heston said of Love Story: “probably the greatest love affair in the history of the American Presidency.”
DeleteYes, Bob. Baby Boomer Ivy Leaguers were a much superior breed of human beings.
ReplyDeleteThat's why, when we came of age, we elected Reagan in two landslides and Bush I in another one.
Do you really think liberal college students elected Reagan?
DeleteDo you really think that was suggested in the comment?
DeleteYes, because that is who Somerby was discussing. He described street fighters trying to end a war. Those kids didn't go on to elect Reagan or Bush.
DeleteWhich street do you think Bob fought on?
DeleteTry Google maps.
DeleteSilly. Bob and Al Gore didn't have Google to find their streets. Al was still in college in '69. He hadn't started his "new kids" tenure in journalism yet, much less graduated to his Daddy's old Congressional seat where he launched his Internet creating initiative.
DeleteSay, Al sounds a bit like Petra. But I bet she couldn't write an essay on hog trough cleaning to impress admissions officers like Professor William Deresiewicz.
"Do you really think liberal college students elected Reagan?"
DeleteNo, but I do think that there were a lot of privileged white boys hanging around places like Harvard in the late '60s who like to pretend that they were liberal until it became unfashionable.
I have nothing against Boomers even if they are burdening the Medicare Trust fund.
DeleteHow can they be burdening it when they were the main ones paying into it for the past 4 decades? The oldest boomers have just attained retirement age in the past 2-3 years. How can they already be burdening it when the bulk of the boomer population bulge is not yet retirement age?
DeleteAn ugly negative stereotype that makes no sense.
Right @ 1:04. All those young zombie like Ivy grads scribbling the drivel their corporate owners assign to them is the real threat to the Sam-and-Cokie worst generation.
DeleteLet us also quote from the Crimson Tide story that Somerby finds so painful to read:
ReplyDelete"Look, you can deal with failure. You have read that it is the crucible where character is forged, or something like that. You can handle it, because you believe in yourself. "All right," you say, when the third rejection letter comes in. "Heck yeah! Forging some character right here!"
"But how do you deal with success? How do you deal with the worst kind of success: the kind that befalls other people?"
Good question for Bob as he continues to bemoan the success and count the money that befalls all these other people with minds so inferior to his.
This is an interesting remark because it illustrates the age difference between boomers and whatever age this troll is. People approaching retirement (or those already retired) aren't thinking about career success, their own or anyone else's. They don't typically define success in terms of job or money. All that is irrelevant to retirees. Other values are so much more important. These comments, intended as nastygrams, are so far off the mark it is humorous.
DeleteYour opening sentence demonstrates YOU don't define success by caring if you make sense.
DeleteSomerby is 66. He doesn't care about how successful Digny is getting or how much money Maddow earns. He isn't worrying about blog numbers or his comedy career. Those things matter to you trolls because you are still struggling to find your place in the world. Somerby has found his, so your stupid jibes about his supposed jealousy make no sense. I've said this clearly. If you still don't understand, give it some time. You'll get it when you grow up.
DeleteIf I had a nickel for every time Bob complains about how much money anybody not named Clinton makes, I'd be richer than Bob.
DeleteAnd I am older than he is. Just not half as bitter as he seems and fuzzy as you write.
If you are that old, how on earth can you conclude that when Somerby calls someone a sellout, he is jealous of their pay? That's what makes you a troll instead of a serious commenter.
DeleteLet's see.
Delete5:38 sees Bob writing about other people's money, and you reason that he's calling them sellouts.
5:01 sees Bob writing about other people's play and he reasons that Bob is jealous.
Since both conclusions are matters of conjecture, both are quite reasonable, even though they disagree.
But then 5:38 not only demands that HIS conclusion is the only reasonable conclusion, he further resorts to name-calling the person who came to a different conclusion.
Interesting. What would King and Mandela say?
And the mind-reading powers of people on Somerby's blog never ceases to amaze:
Delete"People approaching retirement (or those already retired) aren't thinking about career success, their own or anyone else's. They don't typically define success in terms of job or money."
Yes, 4:42, Bob is 66, and so drained of original thought that he is stealing themes from Bye, Bye Birdie.
DeleteWhy can't they be like Bob was?
Perfect in every way.
What's the matter with kids today?
Bob has been equally tough on his own age group, the Sam-and-Cokie crowd. It is good to see people Bob, Sam, and Cokie's age so alert and still working.
Delete"Is there anything that I can do, a lot of young people have written to ask me, to avoid becoming an out-of-touch, entitled little shit?"
ReplyDeleteWilliam Deresiewicz
It is a cinch Alexandra Petra wasn't one of his correspondents. How many people do you think really wrote and asked him this? Is this as distracting from his message as Digby's journalistically unproven controversial remarks about expectoration?
I wouldn't ask how many people wrote to him or suggest this is an exaggeration. Bob would have noted it should he have doubted it.
DeleteI would ask how many people took his good advice and avoided either being out of touch, elitist, or entitled. I am pretty sure there is nothing that can be done to overcome being a little shit. That is genetic.
If Bob is right, then ironically as college gets more and more expensive, it is becoming les and less valuable
ReplyDeleteBecause college is becoming increasingly out of reach for even middle class families, there is a motive for trying to tell parents that college is no longer essential career preparation, that graduating is unimportant, and so on. This message may help make those who cannot afford college feel better about their children's life prospects, but it is not true.
DeleteThere are statistics on this. They still show that the more college you attend, the lower your unemployment rate will be and the higher your career earnings and salary levels will be later in life. There are big jumps for those finishing a degree, compared to some attendance or AA certificates. Higher degrees produce bigger jumps in salary and further decreases in unemployment rates. That contradicts the stereotype of the unemployed taxi driver with a doctorate. Even with the recent financial hard times, the value of a college education continues to pay off way beyond the cost of attaining it. So, it is still worth it for people to go into debt to attain a degree.
You need to be careful whose myths you are promoting and whose interests are being served by the nonsense you repeat.
With respect to Somerby's essay, the bad journalists he describes are still earning very high salaries and doing very well compared to their talent and expertise. Their degrees have been very valuable to them. Perhaps the lesson is that the less talented someone is, the more they need an elite education. Somerby says nothing at all about expense of an education (that is your addition here), and he says nothing about an education being less valuable. He says the children being placed in responsible positions at major papers are not (yet) qualified for their jobs. That suggests the work they are being asked to do is being considered less and less valuable by our society, not that the minimal education these kids have attained is not valuable to them as individuals.
If Bob is right, he erred calling this a Supplemental instead of an integral part of his New Kids series. In fact, ex-professor William Deresiewicz has, in his piece, suggested a better title for this piece and this series.
ReplyDelete"Twit Story: Not being an entitled little shit is an admirable goal."
I only wish liberals weren't so clueless and self-absorbed as to realize that these baby elite conformists work against their progressive interests.
ReplyDeleteCluelessness among liberals remains a major problem in confrontations with the conformity of the baby elite. My generation, however, fought in the street but elected Reagan.
DeleteI wish baby elite conformists and self-described progressive weren't so self absorbed as to realize they aren't progressive, they're irrational and, when necessary, Stalinistic.
DeleteSo the NYT and WaPo run to Harvard and Yale for a few glitzy young reporters/columnists, in a desperate attempt to stay "with it." (How many of their reporters do they recruit this way? I suspect, not many, but I could be wrong. Some stats on these newspapers' new hires might provide a little "perspective.") What are the criteria of these newspapers when recruiting this type of young reporter? Do those criteria correspond to the criteria used by others who might consider Ivy League grads for further schooling or jobs? To criteria the Ivy League students themselves think matter to their lives?
ReplyDeleteDon't bother to ask such obvious questions (which would, I am sure, have many answers). Label (if only implicitly) ALL Ivy League students twits because (maybe) a couple of newspapers run to those schools for (a few of) their young recruits.
This from the man we're supposed to trust on interpreting educational testing stats.
How to avoid most of the trolls: skip "Anonymous." Apologies to all the nice 'anonymi'.
ReplyDeleteThis is, of course, the best way to read the best of David in Cal and fairleft quickly.
DeleteWhat? I couldn't read you! Try to write less anonymously!
DeleteWhy does Bob let fairleft dominate the readable comments?
DeleteAt least 2/3's are his and he always devalues the work of many others.
Did former Yale professor William Deresiewicz began making these complaints about Ivy student while he was seeking tenure at Yale or after it was denied?
ReplyDeleteAre his observations about life alterantives and/or the quality of education offered at non Ivy institutions based on experience? Did he, for example, work in a service position at a smaller liberal arts college or just rely on his imagination?
If you really want to play the numbers game, consider this:
ReplyDeleteA high school graduate gets a job as a plumber's apprentice.
He makes little money for a few years, then his earnings steadily increase. His only debts are a mortgage, a car loan, and a boat loan.
Another graduate goes to 5 years of pre-med college on student loans, 4 years of med school on student loans, internship, residency, then reaches his mid-thirties before he can start raking in the big bucks.
The plumber is in his peak earning years all this time, and by the time the doctor pays off the loans, he and the plumber may have the same lifetime earnings when they are age 50 or so, then the doctor quickly passes the plumber, but so what?
The doctor retires with a comfortable portfolio, the plumber has been fishing in his own boat every weekend for 30 years.
My first job as a mechanic in 1971 paid $7.50 an hour (with about 20 hours a week.) However, my bosses were vocational teachers, so I got free training.
My pay rate went up irregularly for 30 years until I retired at $25.50 per hour. (I spent several years as a service writer and two more as a vocational teacher.)
Now, that's per flat-rate hour, and any decent master technician in a busy shop can rack up 60 or more flat-rate hours per week, working only 5 days per week.
You do the math.
Some techs in California are in the $40.00 per-hour bracket, and can earn $120,000 per year.
Granted, the doctor gets free medical care, but I got car parts at cost and free mechanical labor. (My own.)
To this day, I can fix my own cars for 1/3rd to 1/4th of what others pay.
What's more, I loved working on the world's finest cars. (I specialized in German automobiles, and doctors and lawyers were my best customers.)
The drawback was, mechanics have to fix their mistakes for free, doctors get to bury theirs. (Old mechanic's joke).
Mechanics have to fix their mistakes for free. Doctors get the mechanic and everyone else's insurance to pick up the tab for theirs.
Deletesteelers jerseys
ReplyDeletecheap nike shoes
chicago bears jerseys
cheap ray bans
mbt shoes online
nike outlet
omega watches
michael kors outlet
yeezy boost 350 white
nike huarache