The following is an opinion contribution and reflects the author’s views alone.
Throughout the endless bickering and infighting that has characterized the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union, one politician’s astute observation has been overlooked. Michael Roth, Germany’s Deputy Foreign Minister, did not mince words when he exclaimed that Brexit is a “big sh*t show.” The ensuing media firestorm quoted Roth as saying that “90% of the British cabinet have no idea how workers think, live, work and behave” – and that they have no need to because they were “born with silver spoons in their mouths, and went to private schools and elite universities.” As the Monty Python-esque farce that is Brexit demonstrates, elite education often begets leaders whose political imperatives are completely disconnected from the citizens they purport to represent. By perpetuating educational practices which exclude diverse points of view, current elites have condemned future generations to the policy failures of today.
The British parliament’s continuing inability to agree on a path forward for Brexit indicates a significant failure of leadership among the country’s political and cultural elite. Yet despite their purported wide range of opinions, they share something in common: almost all of them attended one of the two highest-ranking schools in the country. In fact, nearly 50% of the British cabinet, including the Prime Minister, attended either Oxford or Cambridge. These two institutions – collectively known as “Oxbridge,” have graduated the vast majority of British cabinet ministers over the past two centuries, as well as most of the nation’s leading figures in academia, business, and the arts. This exclusive group is strikingly homogenous, as most of its members possess a degree from Oxford in Politics, Philosophy, and Economics – a program often compared to Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School. Though Oxford now accepts 60% of its students from state (public) schools, most of its recent graduates also attended expensive prep schools, such as Eton and Harrow. These institutions, which collectively graduate only 7% of all British high school students, serve to further perpetuate class disparities by giving the children of wealthy families a leg up in applying to university. Despite admission practices supposedly based upon exam results, undergraduate admission to Oxbridge is profoundly unmeritocratic. And yet, this is where the future British elite is created, and where they are taught the sloppy habits of mind that are poorly serving the United Kingdom today.
This kind of concentrated power may be expected in a country that has a long tradition of a class-based system. But what about in the United States? America is supposed to be a place where anybody can get ahead if they work hard, a place where those from humble backgrounds can accomplish their dreams. Is it not a place where the cream rises to the top and where financial success is tied to individual merit?
While in theory, this credo is true, it does not hold up in practice. A recent report shows the United States has nearly the lowest level of intergenerational social mobility of any wealthy country, placing only one rank above the UK. The who’s who of the American political class showcases this disparity: Hillary Clinton, Steve Bannon, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Al Gore, Ted Cruz, Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump have more in common than many would like to admit. All of these political thought leaders attended Ivy League schools or similarly elite educational institutions.
If these institutions valued intellectual and socioeconomic diversity, forming an elite from their ranks would not be an issue. Unfortunately, this is not the case. American Ivy League schools have much the same problems as their British peers, admitting as many students from the top 1% of the income distribution as the bottom 60% – including our very own Princeton University. Geographic diversity is also an issue, considering that over half the University’s student body comes from North Eastern coastal states or California, despite these same states only possessing 35% of the nation’s population. Perhaps this would not be a problem if elite campuses actively encouraged intellectual diversity, but as my colleagues at the Tory continue to demonstrate, this is very far from the truth. Most professors are liberal, as are most students, and while universities are committed to free speech in name, few take the initiative of creating classes which challenge elite orthodoxy. The result is a graduating class that largely remains in the intellectual bubble in which it was born, unable to formulate innovative responses to the pressing issues facing the general population.
One oft-cited solution is to abolish these schools together. French President Emmanuel Macron has taken the extraordinary step of seeking to disband France’s prestigious Ecole Nationale d’Administration (ENA), which produces virtually all of the highest-ranking executives in the French government and large corporations. Dissolving the elite schools would probably not be possible in the United States, but even if it were, disbanding the elite class entirely could have unexpected consequences. Some thinkers from the Italian School of Elitism argue that it is important for a nation to have some kind of “elite” separate from the common man, because it permits the elite leaders of competing grassroots political groups to collaborate. An excellent example of this is early twentieth-century Britain, in which parties of all stripes were stocked with Oxbridge graduates – individuals who were able to effectively navigate the communism-versus-capitalism debates which consumed other European countries. Camaraderie among members of the elite, even those from opposing political groups, is necessary for a democratic society to function. Elite groupthink is dangerous, but so are radical grassroots groups that are unable to communicate with representatives from the other side.
Thus the answer lies in the places where future leaders are created – that is, elite institutions like Princeton. As unfair as it may seem, the Ivy League schools still produce the vast majority of the nation’s politicians, judges, and journalists, not to mention a disproportionate number of high-ranking corporate executives. The elite-making function of these institutions also extends abroad, which is demonstrated by the large number of foreign heads of state that are Ivy-League educated. Removing these schools from the picture would simply redistribute students to the next-highest-ranking schools, pushing the problem of elite concentration onto other institutions.
So what can be done? No number of self-critical op-eds in student newspapers can make a measurable impact on elite attitudes. Nor can well-intentioned efforts by the university to recruit people from historically-disadvantaged racial communities, many of whom are already on the high end of the income distribution and end up moving to New York and California like most of their graduating class. The only real solution is to increase geographic and socioeconomic diversity on elite campuses, making it more representative of the American population. While I am not recommending affirmative action in the traditional sense, I do feel comfortable with admissions officers giving a slight advantage to students from underrepresented regions of the country, or those whose families lie below the 60% income threshold. Perfect equality is a pipe dream, but levelling the playing field towards applicants with different levels of academic opportunity is a step in the right direction. Alternatively, requiring a year of service before matriculation would also be beneficial. The civic obligation would force expose members of the elite to novel perspectives from people they might otherwise have never encountered.
Regardless, Princeton students, elite or not, need to actively work to maintain their connection with the world of the common man. Contrived short-term community service does not cut it; connections with those outside the bubble need to be maintained throughout their entire working lives. Britain may not be the mess it is today if members of parliament had bothered to listen to their constituents, who simply want this farce to end. The future of effective democratic governance depends on our efforts – and it starts right here.
Copyright © 2024 The Princeton Tory. All rights reserved.