"Is "intelligence," is "merit" so strongly correlated with class? That's very hard to believe."
Well, you know: if your parents like bagels, you'll probably like bagles; if you're born into the fifth generation of a musical family, chances are you'll learn to play an instrument and come to hear and appreciate a lot of music. If your parents care about education, you'll care about education. If they help you with your homework, you'll do better. If they have mastered a professional vocabulary and know how to use it to establish a privileged position in society, chances you will also think this a worthwhile goal and pursue it yourself And then, if you believe class society is the best we can do, you can probably talk yourself into accepting whatever justifies those who occupy the favored seats. Something can look like intelligence...when it is actually just a canny form of collaboration
A lot of what passes for intelligence is nothing more than the mastery of a professional jargon and the social ease that comes with using it and getting approval for using it. That's one reason why lots of smart people who lived in the past, seem so stupid now. We recognize the jargon and the cant at a remove.
Elite institutions are very good at defining professional jargons, at teaching it, and at rewarding people for using it. The notion that SATs measure anything except the degree to which one has been schooled in a particular culture is laughable. This isn't sour grapes; this is Ms scholarship, super-achieving, high SAT girl talking. It's crap. It evil crap when it is used to justify misery, unequal distribution of wealth, and deadening forms of life and "culture."
Smart isn't enough. Woodrow Wilson was smart. Edward Teller was smart.
But, I do think there are two real advantages to elite institutions:
1. Because most attending elite universities are not materially needy, they might be more likely to experiment, to take a more critical approach to the disciplines, and to treat college like an intellectual sandbox rather than a career path. And this can have a liberating effect.
2. Because elite institutions are there to train the elite, passivity is not encouraged as much as it is in the secondary tier...because, after all, these students need to see themselves and train themselves to lead. This is also good.
But, is this worth paying 8 times the tuition? Or, conversely, are there other ways to foster these qualities: critical/selfless enquiry and creativity?
Joanna