Ponzi: I assume you don’t believe this but your resigned tone makes one think you do.

What tone of resignation? All I’m saying is that an naive frontal assault on the system is rarely going to be successful. In order to change the system you need to have a clear-eyed notion of how the system works, so that you can spot weak points in it, and figure out what deals to make and what deals not to make.

Any most importantly, you need to think about what you will do if you win. Power is dangerous and wielding it can be self-destructive. The real tragedy is not so much the people who failed at overthrowing the system, but the people who *succeeded* at overthrowing the system and then promptly destroy the people around them.

Finally, people are much more likely to surrender if you can convince them that there is a good place for them in the new order.

Ponzi: Like you say, you can’t expect people to act differently. Therefore, you have to change what they are allowed to do.

Who watches the watchmen? If you are in a position to control what other people do. Then who controls you. Whoever controls you, who controls them?

Do not attempt to change any of the workings of the system. It is futile. It always was and always will be. Nothing can be done to improve it.

I assume you don’t believe this but your resigned tone makes one think you do.

However, apart from this adopting a position of impotent resignation, I agree with much of what you write here. My point was that the actors today do not think in terms of power relations and conspiracy. Most of them just want what’s good for their kids and use the system that exists.

Like you say, you can’t expect people to act differently. Therefore, you have to change what they are allowed to do.

And the people designed this system, *did* intentionally set things up to perpetuate their power and status. If it is one constant in history that is that people with power and status do everything that the can to keep their power and status, and this often involves making deals with people who can challenge them. The admissions systems of the elite universities can been seen as a deal between the upper class power elite, and the upper middle class “want to be’s”. The upper class needs to keep the upper middle class happy since the upper middle class has the means and resources to overthrow the upper class if they wanted to. By making most of the positions in Harvard open to the upper middle class, their threat is neutralized.

What makes the system work also is that US has a Federal multi-party system. If you want to be among the people who run the United States, you can get there directly through Harvard (graduate Kennedy School, get a job in a think tank or in a staff position in a federal agency). However, if you don’t make it to Harvard, you can be one of the people that run the state of North Carolina by going to University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill (become a local lawyer, or state assemblyman, or state court judge), and if you are hungry, ambitious, and lucky enough, you can get to Washington through the local elites. There is also a Republican establishment and a Democratic establishment, and the two groups really don’t like each other that much.

This makes the dynamics of power in the United States vastly different than in Japan or France which don’t have regional elites.

Yes there is a conspiracy in which people with power seek to keep that power. That’s the way that it’s always been, that’s the way it always will be. From time to time, you need to change who is in power, but don’t expect the new people to ultimately behave much better than the people they replaced.

Let’s not be naive just so we can feel better about the admissions system.

I assume the ‘ruling class’ loves their children and wants what is best for them just like everybody else. Screwing some unconnected stranger out of a position is a small price to pay to get your kid into an elite school. To argue that they would not use whatever leverage they have to do this because of some desire to co-opt potential threats to the status quo down the road is silly. After all, it’s not a conspiracy, it’s simply the result of human beings trying to help out their kids by working a system that allows such favoritism.

Also, America’s “ruling class” knows far better than to try to overly restrict admissions. The gates are open enough so that anyone who has the ability to seriously challenge the power of the ruling class, gets in and becomes part of it. An example is the “class of 1965″ (kids of Asian immigrants who arrived as a result of the immigration act of 1965). These make up a huge fraction of the Ivies.

It should be noted that the cited reference estimates that the number of people who would benefit by removing all legacies is about 15% of the incoming freshmen class (which sounds right) and that the beneficiaries would be the upper middle class (which also sounds right).

Also the paragraph at the end sounded a bit hollow to me. I wonder “what professed ideals” the reviewer was referring to.

THE PRICE OF ADMISSION

How America’s Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges — and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates

By Daniel Golden

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/07/AR2006090701299.html

So why do you think, say Yale, asks the applicant on the admission application whether the applicant’s relatives (parents, grandparents) attended Yale? Out of pure curiosity, no?

http://www.yale.edu/admit/freshmen/application/pdf/yale_supplement.pdf

Regarding Ivy League, I recall reading about a system of “legacy preference” that operates in the US.

Regarding Oxbridge, the Financial Times published several reports this week about how to get into Oxbridge. Start by going to a fee-paying school. Alternatively, buy an expensive house that comes with a chance of access to a good state school.