#20 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Friday May 7)
Good morning!
Retirement is an eventuality we all have to confront and embrace at some point. At some point our work lives must come to an end. To some, having to walk away from one’s career is impossible to contemplate.
It is more difficult for those who depend upon their natural abilities, have carefully and methodically honed skills, often sacrificing much of their youth, and have depended upon athleticism, grace, and beauty to achieve success. Their bodies and skills are on a “time clock” shorter than the typical career path of the rest of us. Think about dancers or gymnasts, whose skills peter out in their late-20s or athletes, whose peak skills rarely extend beyond their mid-30s. Two stories came out yesterday that speak to the lives of sports legends who played past their prime—Willie Mays and Albert Pujols.
The first news item is the 90th birthday of Willie Mays, probably the greatest player of his generation. Many argue that he is the greatest all-around player in the history of baseball.
Who can’t forget the films of his amazing fielding and his exploits at the plate. Some say he played a year too long, having descended from his prime—and that no doubt was true. But his last year wasn’t as bad as people remember, yet he sensed he was at the end and retired anyway, knowing his best baseball days were behind him. How good was he? Joe DiMaggio and Hank Aaron both felt he was the greatest ever. But it was not merely his statistics that made him who he was. In the words of his former manager, Leo Durocher, “If somebody came up and hit .450, stole 100 bases and performed a miracle in the field every day, I’d still look you right in the eye and tell you that Willie was better…he had the magic ingredient that turns a superstar into a super Superstar. Charisma. He lit up a room when he came in. He was a joy to be around.”
The second story is that the Angels designated Albert Pujols for assignment yesterday. This is a kind way for a team to put an aging star out to pasture. Albert has had quite a run in a long career. “The Machine” (as he was nicknamed during his remarkable run while a St. Louis Cardinal prior to joining the Angels) was in the final year of one of the most expensive contracts in major league history. His remarkable skills are gone. Sure, he’s passable these days, sometimes even showing signs of his former self. But his time has come. He wants to come back with another team, but I think that would be a mistake. Better to remember him as the player, leader, and humanitarian that he has been.
Then there is Mike Trout, the current undisputed king of baseball, until his skills begin their decline in his mid-30s…
A topic I’m going to address in the next several Fridays is American universities—sports, pedagogy, mental health, the Greek system, admissions, and scandal…
ADMISSIONS—CHAPTER ONE
“Every year we could fill our school with valedictorians and class presidents alone,” droned on the admissions officer at the information session at a “highly selective” college. “You shouldn’t be disappointed if you don’t get in,” she continued, “After all, each year we have several times more qualified applicants applying than we have spaces.” Years ago, when our kids were “doing the college tour,” we heard this speech over and over again.
Every year delighted alumni are regaled by their alma maters touting how much more selective their institution has become. Where it was not uncommon to see Harvard, Yale and Stanford admitting a low percentage of applicants each year, more and more schools have entered the rarefied air of admitting fewer than 10% of all applicants. These schools are categorized as being a club to which one aspires to belong: “highly selective.” People think that this definition refers to the percentage of students admitted. But it means so much more.
Once admitted, college is a pro forma four years of classes, extra-curricular activities and parties. Barring some major problem, students will receive degrees from our most elite institutions validating that they were “selected” in a way that may not at first seem evident. They have been selected to occupy the ranks of the elite in our society—a selection made at age 17, when they were admitted. In other societies throughout history, the ranks of the elite have been populated by even less egalitarian means—the landed gentry, sometimes the religiously fanatical, and occasionally the extraordinarily popular. In the former Soviet Union and today’s China, party leadership and loyalty are necessary preconditions to elite status. In ancient China, an elaborate testing system determined who would lead and who would follow.
In America, the quickest way to the top is a degree from Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Princeton, Columbia and a few other of the “most” selective. Every year people whose sole claim to fame is having been chosen based upon an SAT score, GPA, over-loading on AP classes, and a persuasive essay in their teen years receive society’s imprimatur to occupy the highest rungs of power and professional success. Society has every right to demand that the ranks of the elite be occupied by the “best and the brightest.” Oddly, however, this decision is left to overworked applications readers at a few institutions. And these institutions have a stake in the game of making these choices.
It should not be surprising that the progeny of the wealthy are highly sought—their parents build an ever more elaborate (one might argue absurdly overbuilt) physical plant. Equally unsurprising is that athletes occupy many of the spaces (nor is it surprising that football and basketball coaches typically are among the highest compensated employees of their institutions). Athletes will be destined for elite status because of a particular acumen or dedication toward success in sports. Sports is a national obsession, with alumni clamoring for greater athletic success from their institutions. But should we bestow this national elite status on someone whose greatest accomplishment is a dedication to lacrosse or tennis or field hockey? Now there is a groundswell to include more children from underserved communities that includes attacks on the system of “meritocracy.” Grades? Highly subjective. Test scores? Racially discriminatory. Poorly written essays? The result of failed schools. While these arguments may have some rational defense, those seeking to admit more kids from underserved communities are not using their best argument. It is not the qualifications of others candidates that are keeping kids out—rather, it is the institutionalized bias toward money, sports, and connections, coupled with one additional important factor: an imbalance of supply and demand.
And because the demand is so great, there is no certainty to the process. Students must apply large number of schools of the same caliber in order to get into one or two. As a result of the increasing number of applications, and the relative ease by which an applicant can add more schools to their list, the number of applicants for each slot at each school increases dramatically, furthering the “race to the bottom” of low acceptance rates. And U.S. News and World Report and other ratings groups are delighted.
Critics have been focusing on dividing up the pie in different ways—trying to reallocate the number of admissions among different groups and to impose different weighting factors to things like family background, economic need, ethnicity and personal hardship. But what if we think about this in a completely different way? What if we could solve the logjam through manipulation of the numerator and the denominator of a simple equation—one that creates the limits of, and the conflicts within, the system?
The numerator of this fraction is the number of students admitted. The denominator is the number of applications received. In a perfect world, only those students would apply who would meet standards adopted by the institution (the denominator) and all of those admitted would be the same (the numerator). Of course, it is impossible to create such a result, but we certainly should work toward a system that seems fairer and more predictable.
Here are a few ideas (together or separately) that could go a long way toward creating greater equity, create a larger pool of potential elites, and, at the same time, not exclude qualified students:
Admit more students. This seems the easiest possible solution. Instead of reducing the number of students who might otherwise qualify for admission under existing standards, why not simply require schools to increase their freshman class by 10%. I doubt the burden of a larger number of students will materially decrease the quality of the education or seriously overburden professors. Some may question how we can mandate that Harvard and Stanford increase the size of their entering class. Let’s remember, however, that these “non-profit” institutions exist pursuant to a public trust established by the government and these institutions are recipients of huge government contracts. A lot of this funded research could be done by one institution versus another—their scientists, facilities and methodologies are not so appreciably different. We have leverage to demand compliance and should use it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/harvard-and-its-peers-should-be-embarrassed-about-how-few-students-they-educate/2021/04/08/3c0be99c-97cb-11eb-b28d-bfa7bb5cb2a5_story.html
Reduce applications. There is an arms race going on, whereby schools are encouraging people to apply—people whom they know are unlikely candidates. Why? Because this drives up the denominator (and, therefore, reduces the percentage acceptances). Perhaps the government may want to withhold funding dollars to those that cannot explain acceptance levels below 10%.l
Pick a number and full disclosure. Each university should state simply and forthrightly the number of slots that it intends to reserve for athletes and “special” relationships. We require truth in advertising everything else. Why not here too?
COLLEGE EDUCATED VERSUS NOT
A lot has been written lately about the split of college-educated and non-college-educated voters. But I’m not sure that’s the right split. I think the right split is those with critical thinking skills and those without. Sadly, a college education no longer ensures that these skills will have been taught (or learned), particularly when much speech is quelled by student groups seeking not to be challenged by speech or views they may not want to hear.
More on college education in a week.
Best, Glenn