This book explores the evolution of the U.S. "aristocracy" to a "meritocracy." The “aristocracy” being the wealthy WASP families, who for generations had attended the same elite prep schools and colleges (Harvard, Yale, Princeton..) Before WWII, there was no attempt to include intelligent non-elites into this mix and the book includes many anecdotes about how little these elites actually worked vs. played, and how unconcerned they were with obtaining employment after college, because they were either independently wealthy or they had a family business to join. In short, it was truly an aristocracy, rather than meritocracy.
The end of WWII and the influx of men bearing GI bills and a few forward thinking members of the aristocracy combined to fundamentally alter the process for accessing higher education and the width of the open entrance gate. The original idea was to find a handful of brilliant souls languishing in lower socioeconomic conditions and offer them the golden ticket. Put crassly (not by me), they would begin “raking genius’ from the rubbish.” This idea evolved into a test to - purportedly objectively - rank all college applicants in order to truly view applicants based on merit, rather than heritage. The SAT became the race to win, with the ACT closely behind. Notably, all of this enormously changed higher education in the US and all of it was accomplished with no governmental inquiries or policy reports demanding one direction versus another. Put another way, the critical government function of determining the allocation of its funding for educating its citizens was privatized and subject to little to no public scrutiny or input.
I started this book a decade ago but got bogged down in Part one because I really didn’t care that the Harvard guy had gotten remarried and had 4 daughters. I did care that Stanley Kaplan started his test prep factory to serve the middle class and that the ACT began as the public school testing organization, as opposed to the SAT’s use primarily originating in the wealthy private schools. But these facts were a tad buried.
Part 2 of the book is particularly interesting for Californians as it reviews the development of UC’s “Master Plan” of education, followed by the affirmative action struggles of the 1990’s. I graduated from SF State and then from a UC grad school (which I got into largely based on test results acquired after taking a Kaplan’s course), my daughter is a current UC student and I was very active in the struggle to save affirmative action - so the “gossip” in this section was welcome by me, but I can imagine it might bore others.
I rated this book “amazing” because it connected huge dots in my thinking: This book asserts that in the early - mid 1960’s, the federal government would have welcomed increasing federal funds to public education, which is largely locally financed. In order to justify the funding, it commissioned a study. The resulting Coleman Report analyzed the data correlating school funding with achievement and concluded that correlation was lacking! Consequently, the argument continues, the feds had no basis for arguing that federal funding for poor and minority public education was required. However, the book asserts, the federal government remained interested in helping minorities to succeed (this is after the post-Brown v. Board of Ed and black riots days), so the idea of affirmative action became the path. And, the funding of public education remained a local affair, which inherently creates great disparities since the wealthy tend to prefer to live among their own kind. As noted above, I was a strong affirmative action advocate when its challengers arrived. And, I remain an affirmative action advocate. However, it is clear that it should not and can not be the primary action to achieve “equality of result” that our nation takes. I really want to look further into the Coleman report and varying analyses of the data and further studies related to school funding and achievement. I believe that “quality education” (of the type the elites provide their own children) can significantly reduce the achievement gap. It's not the only answer, of course, education politics and policy is so difficult because of the humanity of the situation - you are dealing with some children who are homeless, abused, whose parents are gone or incarcerated - can these human realities be remedied with funding? Let’s try. Affirmative action has merit because diversity is worth fighting for in its own right. But, it comes with heavy baggage for those it blesses and bitterness for the white lower income who see their own dreams overlooked.
Really important stuff to ponder… Loved the book, despite flaws.