Tea, Fire and Boredom

Survival of the Fittest (University)

When I was growing up, I used to think of the Ivy League schools as bastions of intelligence and brilliance. A school like Harvard or Yale or Princeton or any other was a of beacon of light for the dark and unenlightened rest of the world. I would like to say that this illusion has effectively and completely broken down into rubble, but I feel that rubble would be too close to the original delusion to adequately describe the transformation. Perhaps an image such as dust or obliteration would be a more appropriate comparison. Hyperbole aside, it is very tempting to categorically label all such students of such school as intelligent. And that works if you narrowly define intelligence as the ability to make full and completely darkened circles in the correct order or subjugate yourself to a respectable group of other followers to imbue yourself with the benefits of their collective reputation.

Most of us understand on some external or internal level that things such as grades, tests scores, ability to play certain sports and certain instruments only represent a narrow slice of a person’s intelligence, though many internalize or simply ignore this insight. Selective blindness to this thought is very useful if you are one of those people who can get good test scores and do the sports well as it provides a justification for your feeling of superiority over others. However, actually being around so-called high achieving individuals, especially at a University, does a fairly good job of shattering any such hope that ability to be admitted equals intelligence.

I see plenty of people who are “intelligent” by the aforementioned standard. I see drunk idiots staggering around campus who got a 2400 on their SAT and routed every AP test known to man. I’ve sat next to people willing to spend 3 days in the library, take a shot of Red Bull and do 7 more. And the “handbag to book” ratio is still pretty bad here. The longer I’m here, the more I realize that many, if not most students don’t care about thinking in any large or open sense. You know what they’re interested in? Being accepted. Getting ahead. Doing well. Making the right grades and getting into the right clubs. I find there is no significant difference between this and the clamor to finish college applications. This has only the thin veneer of dignity painted in orange and black. They don’t want to be the next prophet or start a revolution. You know what they want? A safe place to live. A house with neighbors like them and money flowing through the garden. It’s why Princetons, nay most Ivy League students, spend most of their time trying to bubble into their own little groups.

You realize that in the end, none of this is about being smart in any broad form. They don’t want the next Jesus or Einstein. They want the CEO who will punch in, punch out, and likely do the same to his wife. Because in the end, any research University with an reasonable endowment is not interested in training people who can think for themselves. Fuck, the last thing they want is some annoy son of a bitch roaming around campus and asking awkward questions. First off, there’s no way in hell he’ll willing go along with the myriad of ridiculous, yet time honored traditions. I sometimes wonder why we so readily reject traditions such as slavery and the denial of woman’s suffrage, but heartily endorse singing “Old Nassau” and parading up and down campus. They all were pretty much started by the same rich, white people. And if this student doesn’t buy into the campus traditions, he might inspire other students to shun such frivolities. There’s nothing worse for social control than people who don’t buy into your assumptions.

But the worst thing of all, is that this student isn’t going to donate money as an alumni. Hell, he might not even have much money to begin with. Even though we think of evolution in terms of biology, the same principles can be used to look at institutions. They survive and fail depending on their ability to survive in different social climates. A University with any sort of interest in protecting its endowment needs, nay thrives, on a constant supply of alumni donations. More money = bigger endowment = better school. More money for buildings and research and professors. Our educations system is set up to define the fitness of a University directly and indirectly as a result of money. In such a case, a research University must train people who are set up to make the most money. This isn’t a conspiracy theory, but the logical result of the circumstances that we have found ourselves in. The very fact that a University thrives today iplies it has survived by obtaining large sums of money. And this necessitates a money generating alumni. So as much as we would like to support philosophers and thinkers and artists and free thinkers and revolutionaries, these people don’t make much money. The University needs obedient, efficient, young professions. It needs engineers and lawyers and doctors and CEOs. People who are willing to do 100 hours a week, make a ton of money and funnel it back into the University. I look forward to disappointing them.

An article that I liked on this subject: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200104/brooks