Elite colleges are not necessarily the place to get the best life prep

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/books/review-in-where-you-go-is-not-who-youll-be-frank-bruni-examines-college-admissions-mania.html?_r=0

This is especially true for wealthier Americans and "elite" institutions, where admission is seen more as a status symbol (like a Tesla or a LV bag) rather than a vehicle for educating and cultivating a young person for the benefit of society (a university's true mission). But actually, the data suggest that graduates of elite schools do not have significantly better life outcomes on the whole vs. graduates from "moderate" state schools. Sure, there are some segments where your pedigree really matters, but do you want to spend the rest of your life in those circles, surrounded by pompous pricks (some snobby corners of tech, Wall Street, etc.)?

And of course two major drawbacks of attending an elite private school are (1) debt and (2) a more bubble experience (your peers will be more homogeneous, and you may not get exposure to many real-life challenges that help a student thrive in the adult world). Also, some students may feel complacent that admission is the endpoint - they made it. Life is just about marketing yourself and jumping through the hoops to earn some administrator's approval, and then you're on easy street.

But admission is actually just the start - students should be driven to maximize their precious opportunity and realize that it is just a first step along a path that has many greater challenges and learnings ahead. Students may feel entitled ("I'm going to have a degree from Yale - of course the top employers will want me, I'm so awesome!"), and then lose focus (or even get lazy) - while other similarly-talented students snubbed by the Ivies might have a chip on their shoulder, rededicating themselves at a state school to be the best they can be. And let's be honest - undergrad chemistry or econ at Harvard vs. Texas will be taught at about the same quality (and probably not much better than Coursera). The concepts and knowledge are identical - it's just how motivated the student is to think critically, set healthy goals, and apply the learnings productively. Upon graduation, which student will likely have more grit and tenacity to succeed in the workplace? Savvy employers know that character/fortitude is way more important than pedigree to help the org succeed.

Some other sick facts about the perverted system:

• In some cases, families are paying admissions "coaches" $50K and starting at age 12 to get their resume in good enough shape to be competitive. Just imagine what message that is sending to the kid for what is required to get ahead.
• Stanford set the record recently for a 5% undergrad admissions rate. Now the bar has moved so of course the Ivies will try to match. They often do this by advertising to students with good metrics, but low chance of admission (maybe no legacy or not from the right demos). This helps puff up their "exclusivity rating" by making the median scores of their applicants look better, while lowering their admissions rates. And as we know from Apple, exclusivity begets disproportionate interest, even if the underlying product doesn't merit it.
• Many administrators and admissions officers know that the system has gone off the rails and want to fix it, but they fear that they will be the only one and then be at a disadvantage vs. their rivals who perpetuate the misguided process.

The "Tiger Mother" is back, now looking at culture vs. success in America

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201402141000

We know Chua definitely doesn't pull punches, and controversy increases sales. But just as her last book was a "cautionary tale" of the cost-benefit of raising kids a certain way, this new book (wrote with her husband) is not a "this is how you should do it" lesson  for success in America. It presents a certain formula that led to seemingly positive outcomes for some groups, as well as the pro-con implications of that approach. It can be misused, doesn't guarantee results, and is not appropriate for all situations.

First of all - every culture has segments who are flying high and some who are struggling. Anecdotes aren't really useful (John Roberts types thinking that racism is no longer a problem because Obama became president), and I think the authors are more interested in comparing group averages/medians and proportions. They think academic/economic success is America is tied to being an "out-group" with strong ethnic pride and a chip on the shoulder to succeed. Like some Asian immigrants were used to being at the top of their native societies, but have to start from scratch in America. So they push their kids hard to excel in school and return to prominence. But once the immigrants have been here for 3-4 generations (like some Irish, Chinese), then they start to lose that drive, assimilate (for better or worse), and lag behind more recent immigrants. Unfortunately, when you compare lower-income recent Chinese and Latino immigrants, the kids of the Chinese families are doing a lot better in the US - despite both of them coming from similar socioeconomic backgrounds in their homelands and filling similar social niches in the US. So something may be going on there.

Also, cultures like Jews and Mormons may feel that they are a "chosen people" destined to be great, yet could be misunderstood and not accepted in mainstream US culture (getting less and less so). That also motivates them to succeed, "prove the haters wrong", and may manifest itself in disproportionate representation at elite colleges and workplaces. I wonder if they showed data that Jews and Mormons who are more devout/culturally aware do better than those who don't, to see if heritage is really the driving force. But of course extremist, fundamentalist Jews and Mormons are not doing as well in the US, as they likely eschew mainstream education and careers. Similarly, I wonder if the authors have looked at LGBT Americans. They may also fit the mold of a proud, fairly successful out-group. However, it may not be their differentiating sexual identity that is driving the success, but rather the fact that they tend to come from more educated/wealthy backgrounds, and live in urban, progressive environments with a lot of social mobility and economic opportunity?

Lastly, cultures/families that promote delayed gratification/strategic thinking/discipline also seem to be correlated with better economic outcomes. This is kind of parenting 101, but if families can get kids to "buy into the program" that short-term pain is worth it for long-term gain, then the kids may embrace the benefits of studying, piano practice, etc. I haven't read this book, so I am not sure if they are claiming that some cultures on average promote these behaviors more than others, or if it's even possible to collect that data.

However, the authors don't really talk about the blue-bloods in America who may not fit their model at all, yet remain quite successful (Bill Gates, Rockefeller types). In that case, wealth-class-environment are a much bigger driver than cultural background and customs. You give someone with any race/ethnicity/background the upbringing that George W. Bush had, and that person is going to be pretty successful. I am not sure if I can say the same if Bush, Paris Hilton, or other "legacy babies" get swapped into a single-mother family in East LA or Flint. So the authors call out the difference between cultural pride and misguided sense of entitlement. The former may motivate a person to strive harder and "live up" to the high expectations of their heritage, while the latter may make a person lazy and arrogant. Personally, I think pride is a dangerous tool that historically has led to more harm than good. Humility and social awareness can also motivate people to do great things for others, while also profiting personally.

A thesis like theirs can easily be misconstrued to imply that some cultures are simply "better" than others. I really don't think the authors are going there. It's not like we can just decide to "act Jewish," and next generation our family will do as well as the Zuckerbergs. Some cultures are clearly struggling in America, and a greater emphasis on education, discipline, etc. would definitely help. But that may not be enough for many families who are burdened by the physical, emotional, and psychological disadvantages of poverty, geography, racism, macroeconomics, etc. That could partly explain why some recent African immigrants (esp. Nigerians) are on average doing a lot better in the US than many African-Americans whose ancestors were slaves.

And they also raise the question - what is the downside of this approach? As we probably know first-hand, it can be hard to live with parents who have a chip on their shoulder and skewed perspective on success. Like what was depicted in the Tiger Mom book, it's often not a very fun childhood when you're only getting "you're not good enough, no dinner if you mess up your piano recital, you have to be a doctor," etc. And it can be both good and bad for society if we raise kids who are obsessed with individual academic/economic success, yet may not be as concerned with other priorities like being a good person, citizen, neighbor, etc. History has shown us many times that people who feel they are a chosen race end up doing bad things to others. Fortunately US laws and social norms generally prevent that from happening, but I can envision problems associated with groups who think they are superior. Real/perceived discrimination against them is no excuse to embrace exceptionalism. "All men are created equal," remember?

What it all boils down to for me: I would hope that humans try to strike a balance between encouraging academic/economic success (especially for groups with a history of struggles), while not becoming single-minded, arrogant pricks in the process.