This is hardly news, Many of us have included this issue in our courses since the 1970s. The failure of Liberalism to deal with issues based on class, provided fertile ground for the nativism we are currently witnessing.

This is one of the best essays that has come out of the Times in recent memory and it's right. What does this pursuit of "diversity" accomplish if the prevailing end product is the same in substance but just looks different to comply with legal standards and policies.

It seems to me the bigger issue is what the educational system teaches, if it simply rolls out--conveyer belt style--different bodies with the same brain. It was my understanding that colleges and universities are charged with teaching individuals how to think--how to LEARN--rather than what to think and what to learn. If we are just mass-producing different colors, shapes and sizes of Barbie and Ken dolls, then perhaps it's best we limit who we allow in these institutions and make certain people who want a real education stay at home. I suspect the cream will still rise--or fight its way--to the top regardless of which cow produced it.

Mr. Douthat seems to be regurgitating a tired old Republican trope about supposed liberal brainwashing at elite universities. The truth is that members of the American elite are less shaped by their four years in an idyllic setting of higher education, where they spend a few hours per week attending classes, than by decades of struggle and competition later in life as they seek to rise within corporate and government bureaucracies.

What exactly is "merit"? High IQ scores? The ability to focus for long stretches of time without much sleep? Pearly white teeth, broad shoulders, and physical stature? Personal Charisma? Or perhaps the ability to lie, cheat and steal without getting caught?

Merit depends on the environment and the criteria for success. If we live in a world where the easiest way to make money is to trick other people--if that's what credit card companies, insurance companies, investment banks, and money managers do for a living--then we really do have a problem.

If we live in a world where the easiest way to get elected is to craft sound bites and appeal to people's most vicious emotions rather than their intellect--or to whore one's self out to the biggest corporate donors--then we have a problem.

What kind of world does Mr. Douthat think we live in? And what proposals do he and his right wing friends have to make it a better one?

I am surprised how little commentary addresses the other side of this question: How much is a Harvard or Princeton degree worth in a substantive sense? First, I received a Princeton degree. And I have to say it is a joke. It is practically impossible to fail at Princeton. The classes are generally very easy, at least in the humanities and social sciences. It is more like a country club. And the not-so-open secret is that Harvard has been declining as a serious university for many years. Second, I recall that it was found that SAT scores predict your "life chances" much more then the college you went to. I suggest that the media pop the bubble of the "elite" universities, and ensure meritocracy where it counts--people's talents, regardless of their college background.

Ross - What is missing in both of your arguments is the concept of prestige. I grew up in Chicago, went to a small liberal arts college in Wisconsin (with a majority middle class population), and returned to Chicago for law school (with a non-majority middle class population). When I would explain to people where I went to college, it wasn't grades or scores that were important, it was the brand and the brand was weak because we have college rankings and college sports that tell us where the best schools are. The education I got at my small college may not have been as prestigious as the eastern private colleges, but it provided me with a solid education.

It isn't about affirmative action or race. It isn't about merit. It's about the fundamental structure of our mindset that the best schools are on the east coast and that if you don't go there, you're a failure. Many great leaders came from small schools in the midwest. Many great students are currently at these schools as well. And they go out of their way to get the best students and in some cases, any students, to come to their institutions of higher learning.

We do a great disservice to our country when there are lots of good schools that are affordable and practical for our middle class and lower income students to go to. And none of them are in New England.

In the end, we have to judge people. And those are the methods that should change. Who cares what image Harvard wants to display? Don't argue for them to change because that's a band-aid. Only so many people can go there anyways. We have a very large public and private higher education system that has no rivals worldwide. We must be proud of that and provide everyone the opportunity to enter, no matter what the school is. And we should judge that in a fair manner.

This comment has been removed. Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

What we are experiencing today is the result of unintended consequences. With our desire to be seen as a diverse people we seem to be lacking the needed skills to retain our competitive edge in the world where commerce rules. At some point we should all be judged on our ability and test scores. We seem to be going the other way with all of these social experiments that in the end prove nothing. The world we compete with finds our ways difficult to understand and quite frankly so do I.

Washington DC is filled with examples of good intentions and poor results.

From a commenter in the article:

"In a state like Alabama, the participation rate is less than 10%. In Massachusetts, it is over 80%. Yes, you read that correctly. Feel free to double-check those numbers to verify.

So, the reason why less students from rural areas are getting into the Ivy League is because less students from these areas are going to college as a whole."

Percentage of high school students taking the SAT doesn't equal the percentage of students going to college, especially in the south and midwest. The ACT is dominant in those area.

There's lots of truth in what Ross has to posit - however it's not just amongst the lower class white...have to say I've seen my upper class kids are turning into cynics when they observe that many (perhaps most) of the lucrative summer internships given out by the banks in investment firms go to latinos and blacks. We've also see the top ivy league schools 'cherry pick' the minorities to fill their ranks passing over the whites - as there are limits to how many from any one school....it seems like there's only so much social engineering a society can take on before there is a backlash.

It's great to have equal opportunity - but it seems that Obama wants equal outcomes at all costs as well...this has a very high cost and perhaps the outcome he seeks.

Are you arguing that the methods for improving diversity applied to minority candidates should be adapted for other definitions of diversity? Or that the source of the discrepancies noted in the survey is some sort of pervasive, intentional discrimination?

I think we can probably agree that wealth can give children a leg up in a meritocratic system, in a variety of ways. Higher rates of acceptance for applicants from wealthier backgrounds doesn't imply that universities are trying to hook future donors, or that they're scared of armed to the teeth Red state hillbillies.

In any case, most Red state people I know wouldn't be real excited about going to Princeton. The whole "Ivory tower" thing doesn't appeal to everyone, and I'm not just talking about people like Angelo Codevilla who think its tragic that schools teach evolution.

To David : Speak for yourself - sounds like you didn't make good course choices or a major choice at Princeton. My Harvard daughter is getting an amazing education - truly amazing at Harvard - and she's very challenged and excited about it as well. She's plunged into the Latin Department with vigor - translating Virgil's work this summer, although she's declared a History major / Econ minor. She's also been able to obtain a research postion in the History department working on a fascinating project which has her working closely with the professor overseeing her work. She couldn't be more engaged or excited about learning.

Like anything else - your education is what you make of it.

Sorry, but it drives me berserk when every op ed columnist for the Times, and (apparently) most of the commenters on these websites, assume without question that "elite" education really means "...an English degree from an Ivy League school - plus Stanford."

Where I sit, in the engineering college of a Big Ten university, the world looks a bit different. Yes, of course, Wall Street and Congress will continue to be dominated by the folks who had their tickets punched at one of these schools. But I see very little evidence of read education going on inside the Ivy League - what I do see is an elaborate, expensive initiation rite to a club that gives its members an easy ride though life.

Out here in the real world between the coasts, we're swamped with kids who understand that an engineering degree is almost a necessity now for a good job. Contrary to what you might have learned at Sidwell Friends, there actually are engineering schools at places like Purdue, Ohio State, and Minnesota that are some of the best in the world. And we're actually turning out students who will change the world in a few years, instead of sitting in Manhattan or DC gazing at each others' navels.

The insularity of the American ruling class, in both parties, is both depressing and in a sense, hilarious. Those of us who thought that Obama represented a breath of fresh air have been sadly disappointed, but that does not at all imply that we're attracted to the Know Nothings of the GOP. It would seem that neither party represents the American middle class any longer, and one wonders how long that situation can continue to exist.

On the elites and evangelicals, see James Davidson Hunter's much-blogged-about _To Change the World_. In essence, the message is that grass-roots action (evangelicalism's M.O. -- one heart at a time) cannot change the world since it ignores institutions, and elites are still the culture makers.

Your lamented "single orthodoxy about the origins of man" is comparable not to alleged conformist taste in matters cultural (which I suspect a more penetrating search will not actually turn up) but rather to a "single orthodoxy" about, e.g., the world being round and part of the solar system. Science isn't about opinion. Why would it be a good thing for some members of the governing elites to believe the world was created in seven days, or a couple of thousand years ago?

This is just a scathing indictment and pointing it to liberals. I always thought we could make this same case against the politicians, or the conservative media, or the christian right (or name your group you dislike today) .............You can make this case against any group. Only whites think that this country is homogeneous among all others except for the whites. Only whites think they can make this country diverse.I don't get the argument.

I love that my daughter and her boyfriend left their elitist sub-Ivy league college after one year to live as farmworkers for a year and now in a racially diverse part of Brooklyn, holding down menial jobs. They are doing what my generation dared not: veering off the easy path to a life in the ruling class. Who knows how long it lasts, but I see their commitment as earnest, as far more than just dipping of one's toes in the world of proletarianism that I and some of my peers did, settling finally for all the trappings of elitism. Only now am I coming out the other side, in middle age, inspired by my offspring's rejection of her privileged birthright.

I am glad to see you bringing these issues up, Mr. Douthat. Having grown up mixed-race (white and black) in inner-city Cincinnati and rural Kentucky, I have noted for a long time the focus on helping the disadvantaged is directed at racial minorities, but not poor rural whites, even though in many cases they deal with most of the same disadvantages as inner city minorities (not to mention pretty degrading stereotyping). I think that you are dead-on that poor rural whites need to be incorporated into the ranks of the elites in the same way as minorities, and it needs to be done soon. I also think that if we focus on recruiting more minorities and poor working-class whites, it will stabilize our already divided society and reduce racial tensions. Finally, as a graduate of a service academy (Annapolis) and a University of California (San Diego), I am continually surprised at how liberal elites know very little about certain segments of the population (in particular the military, poor whites, and the religious of any sect or denomination, or anyone outside of the big urban cities on either coast). They tend to be prejudiced, suspicious, and unreasonably fearful of these groups, which is exactly how they stereotype rural whites as behaving towards minorities, gays, or people who are "different" (although there is some truth to this stereotype, not everyone in rural areas behaves like this). Liberal elites are as intolerant to outside groups as anyone I ever knew growing up in Kentucky, but at least there I didn't see people congratulating themselves on being so enlightened and "tolerant" of people different from themselves. I think this is a serious weakness in the liberal world view, and just like the white racists I met growing up, the only reaction that liberals tend to give to pointing out this weakness is denial, rather than attempting to address the issue. Thank you for bringing it to light.

Supreme Court justices, CEOs, high-ranking government officials, pretty much all the influential people have to have an elite-school pedigree these days. Even, the (relatively) anonlymously influential people in journalism (including commentary!) and entertainment are drawn from this elite, thus magnifying their power.

This study helps throw light on what is a much broader problem: the insularity of the elite, their disdain for middle America, and their use of identity politics both for internal status jockeying and for political support. This influences our policies vis-a-vis trade, taxes, immigration, and welfare, and even our social mores. Having an elite is fine if they have their country's and its citizens' best interest at heart, but that is not the case here, and that is the case in part because the meritocracy is NOT really meritocratic, which would necessarily entail real intellectual diversity and real turnover in who hold power.

The comments posted are most interesting I have ever read in response to a NYT piece. I graduated from the University of the Pacific in Stockton, California and never thought about going to the "best" universities in the country---UC Berkeley, the Ivy League and others on the east coast. I never believed that the school makes you. I always felt that what one does and advocates truly reflects who one is--actions and values reflect a person rather than the university they attend.

I went to an eastern school for my post-graduate degree in D.C. and again placed the experience in perspective. I studied and worked hard but I also wanted the practical experience of being in government and politics by working in Congress. I was fortunate to have combined theory with practical experience--an excellent post-graduate education.

I am truly at a lost to understand what appears to be a given by Mr. Douthat, that the "elite universities" are integrated and that they offer substantial opportunities to minorities. I certainly know many minorities that have graduated from Harvard and Yale but access to these institutions continues to be very difficult. Access to these schools is very much like access is to Douthat and the Times. Rarely do they have discussions with minorities or others who truly have experience and perspective on many issues they write about and cover. The dialogue is very limited as it is on the blogs, news programs, internet and media in general.

When opportunities are created at these institutions you would think that we had discovered a miracle drug when you see and hear the "patting on the back". It isn't that the effort and intention are not appreciated but as others have commented Washington is well intentioned but does not provide results. It would be very nice and productive to allow those of us who come from groups whom the "elites" want to help, to actually be allowed to present our ideas for solving problems that society has tried and is tired of trying to resolve.

When the "elites" finally understand in accepting "minorities" it should not be about giving them the same traditional traits but about having them understand the phenomenal opportunity they have to truly pursue change and improvement. They are in institutions that always have a foot up in access and opportunity to making a difference but seldom have they delivered. Look at the many problems and failures of the Obama administration that was touted as having such great minds around him and in his WH because they all attended the "elites".

I do not want to always see Harvard graduates being appointed to the Supreme Court. They should have not have a monopoly just as the Bush and Clinton families should not have one on the Presidency. It would be truly helpful if the "elites" would provide access to the rich diversity that comprises this country and require that the "learning experience" at their institutions actually have them listening and working with one another on problems and issues that we cannot seem to overcome.

Perhaps a great starting point would be to have the "elite" NYT actually provide a rich dialogue and not describe or think that diversity is having younger white contributors who are liberal, moderates or intelligent conservatives but otherwise offer opinions from the same foundation. This might send a different and more positive example to the "elite" universities about what diversity really is.

The concept of meritocracy is much too closely associated with the prestige of some universities. While I agree that more Nobel prize winners have immaculate university credentials, the very fact that they allow a certain percentage of (lower SAT's) to enter tends to make them more equal. If, some commentators suggest, the SAT is a better predictor, why not spread them across the nation? 95% should gain one admission across the country, and indeed, across the country. The boys at Harvard (and I mean the professors) should spend some time looking at their selves, and their lives. It might be a boon for the students.

I voted for Obama, but without question his natural milieu is the media/political/NYC/DC elite, most of whom seem to have gone to Ivy League schools and most of whom seem to be populating the Obama administration. I also wonder if some of the resentment against Obama isn't because of his race, but because he and Michelle are yet more privileged products of the Ivy League machine. Obama seems to be tone-deaf to this in a way that Bill and Hillary Clinton were not and that Joe Biden is not. As the country continues to grind through the Great Recession, I have a feeling these cultural resentments will continue to bubble.

@ A skeptic:

The biggest problem in my mind is that the rules, laws and initiatives on the left side to constantly try to balance things have CAUSED it to be most profitable to lie, cheat and steal. The basic conservative economic system is Person A performs a good or service Person B wants, and Person B pays a price that both agree on - not much room for lying and cheating. Once you get so many rules in place about Person A's price floor, "living wage" for his employees, minority-preference for his loans, approval agencies for his products and "green" tax-breaks there is a lot more room to lie, cheat and steal. It is a lot easier to exploit semantic differences and drafting errors in rules than it is to invent a better mousetrap. If you're smart and realize this - why bother with the new mousetrap instead of becoming a lawyer?

Don't blame Ross' friends on the right - blame his friends on the left.

What to do when promoting "diversity" -- which often includes considerations of race -- disadvantages poor whites? The answer requires both conservatives and liberals to emphasize the "personal responsibility" that they constantly ask of others, for the problems of both groups are quite similar.

Communities need to take responsibility for what they can control; and student achievement and intellectual development are things any community can develop and excel at.

[I'll make sections here, not because I want to sound pompous but because I ended up writing alot, and its easier for you readers if I structure it.]

Personal Responsibility Part 1: Distinguish Race vs. Lifestyle

First off, racial and socio-economic/cultural discrimination are different ethical issues. Racial discrimination has been particularly repugnant to the law because one cannot choose the color of one's skin. Race is an "immutable characteristic," and in legal terms its much more circumspect to discriminate on the basis of immutable characteristics than on lifestyle choices and beliefs.

The type of Christianity that many conservative pundits feel is disadvantaged is a choice, a belief. It is not immutable or innate. There is always a choice to teach kids knowledge that leads to success. Many students in the south go to Quaker schools where, like Benjamin Franklin, literacy and science (including evolution and economics) is taught rigorously, and moral virtue extolled.

So saying "poor whites are discriminated against AS WHITES" is very different from saying "poor whites are discriminated against AS CHRISTIANS." The former is heinous; the latter is less so, and should lead Christian leaders to ask, "what is it about the way we approach education and success that prevents us from producing the thinkers like Isaac Newton and Ben Franklin?"

Personal Responsibility Part 2: Communities and families need to get real about encouraging a lifestyle of learning and achievement.

The story Douthat tells and the stories of Hispanic Americans are not so different. Some children are disenfranchised because their communities don't adopt certain habits of education, like stressing literacy and speaking english. Other children are disenfranchised because their community doesn't adopt other habits of education, like stressing religion over literacy and technical training in the sciences. Especially when parents aren't well educated, underachievement can be passed onto their kids.

In a perfect world, the choices of the parent's community will not limit the child's potential; but at the same time, its not the place of the state to tell the parents how to raise their children.

Coming from a town of 50,000 in the south, I've seen too many people choose to turn their back on achievement. Of my friends in high school, only I and one other went to an Ivy league university. I will be honest: I wasn't the sharpest in the pack. One of the smartest kids in High School thought the Bible disproved genetics. But I studied damn hard, and nurtured a hunger for knowledge; my friend chose instead to work on cars, and had a hunger for PBR.

So what do we do? Encourage education. At the church, at the picnic, at the community center and on the court. Encourage achievement. Encourage entrepreneurialism. Don't teach children cynicism about education and getting good grades. Don't let schadenfreude and the parent's own history tarnish the child's belief that knowledge is important.

I hope this message strikes most readers on the left and right as true, because this is an issue where we really need our country as a whole on the same track.

hmm.... all of the white working class americans from rural backgrounds (ok, including myself and yes I am a Christian also) who have been skimmed off the top of thier environment have had more or less the same cultural and political ideas before and after attending college, so I don't know if this would change anything. There seems to be several issues wrong with your assumptions:

1) there is no discrimination causing the underrepresentation of rural america in elite colleges (with the exception of perhaps truly disadvantaged communities in appalachia and some other regions without access to the same baseline quality primary education) The fact that affirmative action is based on race *is* wrong, but in practice does not have a huge effect because if it were based on access to educational resources in childhood it would still be mostly directed towards minorities... Sorry, but that's just the truth.

2) those "liberals" who have been brainwashed by the education system have a much different definition of liberalism than is promoted by those who call it brainwashing. Liberalism has nothing to do with fiscal policy or gay marriage or the use of the military. *Liberalism* means considering all options, or having an open mind. We are liberal in terms of allowing any concept to bear equal weight in a debate, which is the result of any real education, since education is about learning how to learn not learning facts - in order to know that something is wrong you must envision it as correct - in the end if an option is championed by someone there is probably some truth (no matter how small) to it. It is also why our statements are such easy targets for *conservatives*, who don't believe that all issues should be considered and instead conservatively hold on to notions of "the way things were" and believe that everything can be boiled down to a black and white issue (even if it requires mentally blocking the consideration of some options)

In fact I think that the real problem with a meritocracy is more subtle, and probably has no solution. In general, I am a firm believer in meritocracies from an individualistic libertarian viewpoint (not the current pseudo-libertarian state rights activists) but I've noticed a growing trend which is apparently an unavoidable consequence. This is that our society equates "merit" with "wealth" and thus those with the "merit" can put themselves in a position to make the rules. This is not typically academics, but simply rich people. Many of the richest people continue to be lacking any higher education. All you need to "succeed" in this economy is a strong sense of self and a high tolerance for risk. Many of these people are perfectly good people, and many are selfish brats but #1) they are not a true cross section and #2) why should money be a pre-requisite to political influence? Actually, I might think that we'd have a better society if the rules were made by the academic elite which they are absolutely not, but I'd be happy with a true cross-section of society without CEOs getting disproportionate representation just because they run a business. (as if all those individual employees have the same personal goals!)