Elite colleges and universities only accept on average 6% of applicants, but their influence stretches far beyond this small group. In Excellent Sheep, William Deresiewicz claims these US institutions are so selective and profit-oriented that they perpetuate social inequality and deprive students of high-quality learning. He argues the solution is to make high-quality college education accessible to all US students.
Deresiewicz, a former English professor at Yale, is well-known for his 2008 essay “The Disadvantages of an Elite Education.” After the article went viral, he further fleshed out its ideas in Excellent Sheep. His book draws on historical research, his observations from 15 years at Ivy League schools, and his conversations with college students. Although Deresiewicz primarily addresses an audience of elite parents and students, the topics he covers—from social inequality to developing self-insight—are relevant to any reader.
We’ll begin this guide by exploring Deresiewicz’s vision for an ideal college education and considering how it benefits students and upholds democracy. Next, we’ll contrast his vision with reality: We’ll examine two ways elite colleges and universities perpetuate social inequality and deprive students of this ideal education. Finally, we’ll turn to solutions by describing how governments, schools, and parents can collectively overhaul US higher education—and how today’s students can make the most of their college years in the meantime.
Throughout this guide, we’ll fact-check the author’s claims by providing both supportive evidence and counterexamples. We’ll also discuss ways in which some elite US schools have changed since the publication of Excellent Sheep in 2014. Lastly, we’ll supplement the author’s ideas with additional actionable steps.
According to Deresciewicz, an ideal college experience benefits both individuals and society. He argues that a high-quality college education is a liberal arts program that nurtures students’ self-insight and equips them with the skills to uphold democracy. In this section, we’ll define what a liberal arts education is. Then, we’ll explore how it benefits students and society.
Deresiewicz claims that the liberal arts prioritize character-building over career development. Programs that emphasize career development teach skills related to a specific occupation. By contrast, liberal arts programs emphasize character development by cultivating students’ character as they study a wide range of subjects, such as literature, biology, and history. Your character includes your values (for example, fairness), the ways you treat others (for example, kindly), and your strengths (for example, communication).
The author clarifies that although liberal arts programs prioritize character-building over career development, their students still graduate prepared for the workforce. He cites research showing that many employers specifically seek graduates of liberal arts programs because these alumni demonstrate strong problem-solving and relational skills.
(Shortform note: Recent research confirms that the skills students develop in liberal arts programs strengthen their career prospects. When employers make hiring and promotion decisions, they value liberal arts graduates’ collaboration, communication, and analytical skills over the subject-specific skills they developed through their majors.)
The Evolving History of the Liberal Arts’ Approach to Character-Building
Why do liberal arts programs emphasize character development? The reason dates back to these programs’ origins in ancient Greece and Rome. These programs emphasized character development so citizens (free, adult men) could learn how to contribute to civic life.
Throughout American history, liberal arts programs have continued to focus on developing students’ citizenship skills through building their character. That said, recently, many liberal arts colleges have made career development part of their mission as well. They've started offering career-focused majors (such as business and education) to bring in additional funding and increase enrollment.
However, this addition doesn’t mean these schools have reduced their commitment to character-building. Recent research suggests liberal arts colleges develop students’ character even when those students choose career-focused majors. Students from these colleges with career-focused majors and those with traditional liberal arts majors scored similarly on measures that assessed their reasoning abilities, relational skills, and curiosity. These findings suggest that it’s not what students study at liberal arts colleges that builds their character, but rather how they study those topics: in small classes, with the support of approachable professors.
Deresiewicz argues that the liberal arts’ emphasis on character development nurtures students’ self-insight, which enables them to build a meaningful life. Self-insight is the process of becoming aware of your values, needs, and desires. The author argues that self-insight is the gateway to designing a meaningful life: You must know your values, needs, and desires before you can build a life around them. Liberal arts professors encourage students to engage in self-insight by providing opportunities for self-reflection as they study the world.
Other Ways to Develop Self-Insight
Deresiewicz doesn’t specify if a liberal arts education is the only way for people to engage in self-insight and build a meaningful life. Other experts claim you can curate your own opportunities for self-insight rather than rely on (likely expensive) formal education to provide them. Here are some ways to create your own opportunities for self-insight:
Dan and Chip Heath, authors of The Power of Moments, argue that you can experience self-insight in your everyday life by seeking moments that push you outside your comfort zone. Novel experiences teach you new things about yourself, deepening your self-insight.
Another way to achieve self-insight is to learn from your mistakes and flaws. We tend to hold distorted views of ourselves, but we can develop a more accurate self-image by reflecting on our mistakes and welcoming others’ feedback on our areas of growth.
Therapy also encourages self-insight. Psychotherapists are trained to ask questions that build your self-awareness and empower you to effectively manage your life.
The skills students develop in liberal arts programs benefit society as well. Specifically, Deresiewicz argues that liberal arts programs equip students with skills that enable them to uphold democracy. These skills include imagining a better future, communicating that vision, and collaborating with others to make it happen. Skills like these prepare students to contribute meaningfully to democracy because democracies thrive when citizens together envision a better society and take action to make it a reality.
(Shortform note: Experts agree that for democracies to thrive, citizens must have the skills to collaborate with others and advocate for positive change. However, citizens’ political participation is only one element of democracy. For a democracy to thrive, the government must also protect citizens’ civil liberties and ensure each citizen has the opportunity to participate in political decision-making. Therefore, liberal arts programs’ emphasis on training students to uphold democracy is effective only insofar as the government guarantees citizens avenues for such participation.)
Liberal arts professors develop these skills in students first through cultivating their self-insight. The author argues that you must develop a strong sense of self so you can confidently defend your beliefs about improving society. In addition, professors develop students’ capacity for citizenship by pushing them to question their long-held beliefs, exposing them to diverse perspectives, and teaching the art of crafting strong arguments.
(Shortform note: The need to develop the self-insight, awareness of multiple beliefs and perspectives, and argumentative skills required to uphold democracy and create a better future may be even more urgent now than when Excellent Sheep was published in 2014. Expert assessments show that the average quality of democracy around the world is declining. The US is no exception to this trend. While from 2006 to 2016 these assessments categorized the US as a “full democracy,” since 2016, they downgraded it to a “flawed democracy." This category is for nations that protect peoples’ civil liberties and maintain free elections but also have significant flaws, such as dysfunctional governance and low levels of political participation.)
Next, we’ll contrast Deresiewicz’s vision of an ideal college education with the experience elite US schools offer. By “elite US schools,” the author means prestigious, highly selective colleges and universities such as Yale, Princeton, and Amherst. He identifies two main problems with these institutions.
The first problem is these schools’ admissions criteria. Deresiewicz claims that admissions criteria at elite US schools are so selective that they both harm students and perpetuate social inequality. These criteria include high, narrow standards for the following factors: standardized test scores, leadership experience, extracurricular activities, and social identities. We’ll begin this section by explaining why elite schools’ admissions criteria are so selective. Then, we’ll explore the negative impacts of these criteria.
According to Deresiewicz, elite schools use selective admissions criteria because they stay in business by marketing themselves as highly selective. A school is considered highly selective if it only accepts a small percentage of its applicants.
Elite schools market themselves as highly selective because doing so offers them a competitive advantage over less-selective schools. U.S. News and World Report, a top source of college rankings, elevates a school’s rank as it grows more selective. A top ranking signals prestige, and prestige attracts upper-class students. Elite schools strive to admit qualified, upper-class students because they and their families are likely to pay full tuition and later become donors.
Are Elite Schools Today Deemphasizing Their Selectivity?
Although many elite US schools continue to send data on their selectivity to publications such as U.S. News and World Report, in recent years, several schools have chosen to stop publishing their acceptance rates. Leaders at these schools defend this decision by claiming they don’t want their low admissions rates to stress out prospective applicants.
However, critics question the real intentions behind elite schools withholding their admissions data, claiming that their true aim is to make more money. When these institutions withhold their admissions data, they attract students who would’ve otherwise been discouraged by low acceptance rates. This increases elite schools’ applicant pool (and, presumably, drives their acceptance rate even lower). Schools that charge an application fee, such as Princeton, make money when they increase their applicant pool in this way.
Furthermore, elite schools keep their acceptance rates low by attracting a high number of applicants. They accomplish this by marketing themselves globally and heavily recruiting applicants they don’t plan on accepting. With so many applicants to choose from, these institutions can be picky about whom they admit. As a result, their admissions criteria are exceedingly selective.
Will Elite Schools’ Admissions Criteria Become More Selective?
It’s likely that elite admissions criteria will become increasingly selective in the coming years because applications to college are steadily rising. Applications have been on the rise since 2014, and they have accelerated in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Despite this increase in demand, elite colleges have hardly expanded their enrollment. Researchers argue that these institutions have maintained low enrollment rates to compete with each other, supporting Deresiewicz’s claim that they preserve their selectivity to stay in business.
These experts argue that elite colleges could raise their admissions rates by making a coordinated effort to all increase enrollment. Doing so wouldn’t alter their relative selectivity, and it could prevent their admissions criteria from growing even more selective. However, this effort would require elite schools to expand their facilities and hire new faculty and staff to keep up with the increase in students.
Next, let’s explore how these selective admissions criteria harm students.
Highly selective criteria harm students who are slated to attend elite schools. Deresiewicz claims that as students prepare to meet highly selective criteria, they feel intense pressure to prioritize achievement over experiences that build self-insight. This takes a toll on their mental health.
The author criticizes parents for pressuring their children as early as middle school to be perfect so they’re prepared to meet selective admissions criteria. Parents pack their children’s schedules with extracurriculars that strengthen their resumés. They pressure their children to perfect their schoolwork and prepare for tests instead of developing hobbies that nurture self-insight. As a result, students have little free time, experience intense stress, and develop a fear of failure.
How Full Should a Child’s Schedule Be?
Experts support Deresiewicz's claim that when children are overscheduled, their mental health suffers. Kids with packed schedules eat rushed meals, sleep poorly, and lack the time to build deep relationships with peers.
Furthermore, experts on child psychology and health seem to agree that parents should find a middle ground between packing their kids’ schedules and leaving them with excess unstructured time. They offer the following tips:
Limit structure. Some educators recommend that parents allow their kids to have plenty of unstructured time, rather than filling kids’ schedules with highly-structured activities. Highly-structured activities include after-school clubs, camps, and sports. Children’s remaining time should be loosely-structured so they have the space to experience the fun of spontaneity. Examples of loosely-structured time include making art with friends and creating a den in the garden.
Encourage outdoor time. Research reveals that outdoor play, one type of loosely-structured time, reduces stress, encourages children’s self-insight, and expands their capacity for innovative thinking. Experts recommend parents avoid structuring their children’s outdoor play with rules and equipment. Doing this reduces children’s opportunities for independent, creative problem-solving.
Honor children’s interests. When children choose for themselves which extracurriculars to pursue, they’re often more motivated than if a parent chooses for them. By honoring their child’s interests rather than their own, parents increase the chances that their child will find the activity energizing rather than stressful.
Even after students are admitted to US elite colleges and universities, the legacy of selective criteria continues to harm them. Deresciewicz argues that college students continue to prioritize achievement over self-insight. This emphasis further degrades their mental health and makes them afraid to pursue their own interests.
(Shortform note: College students’ mental health may decline further as members of Gen Z begin to attend college, as this generation already has higher self-reported mental health issues. Factors such as climate change, the rise in school shootings, and reduced in-person interactions degrade this group’s mental health. Pressure to succeed in college may contribute to these existing issues. On the bright side, Gen Z members are more willing than past generations to acknowledge and seek treatment for psychological issues, partly due to the ways social media outlets destigmatize mental health. Colleges should therefore be prepared to support Gen Z’s psychological health through counseling and other efforts.)
Let’s examine several reasons why students at elite colleges continue to prioritize achievement over self-insight.
First, students at elite colleges feel the need to prove they belong because after they’re admitted, they realize their peers are equally as exceptional as they are. To prove their worth, they compete with their peers: They pursue experiences that make them appear more accomplished (such as multiple extracurriculars) instead of experiences with peers that develop self-insight (such as intellectual discussions over mealtime).
Healthier Ways to Develop Self-Worth
Deresciewicz’s analysis reveals the link between insecurity and peer comparison: Students who feel insecure about belonging cope with this feeling by finding ways to feel better than others. Psychology research supports this claim, revealing that it’s human nature to derive a sense of self-worth from viewing ourselves as better than others. Doing so gives us a feeling of security that we’re good enough.
Instead of coping with their insecurities through competitive peer comparison, what are some healthy ways students at elite colleges can bolster their self-esteem? First, experts recommend students deepen their relationships with peers. This helps them realize they’re not alone in having insecurities. Second, students can find opportunities to teach or mentor others (for example, by serving as a peer tutor at their college’s writing center). Teaching people who are new to a topic or skill in which you’re experienced can remind you how knowledgeable you are. This boosts your self-esteem.
The second reason college students continue to prioritize achievement is that elite schools make little effort to deprogram students’ perfectionism. Students sign up for classes they think will be easy and avoid classes and majors that would carry a risk of failure. To them, classes and majors that prioritize career development (such as finance) seem like a safer choice. As a result, many students miss out on the benefits of liberal arts, such as developing their self-insight and their capacity to uphold democracy.
(Shortform note: The author uses the term “excellent sheep” to describe these college students. They’re “excellent” because they seek experiences that make them appear accomplished, and they’re “sheep” because they don’t stray from this approach even when opportunities for self-insight arise. In this guide, we’ll refer to these students as “fearful followers” to emphasize that selective criteria have made them so fearful of failure that they follow existing, perfectionism-driven pathways instead of charting their own.)
Teaching Students to Embrace Failure
How can colleges teach students to embrace failure and overcome their perfectionism? One strategy is providing students with feedback on many lower-stakes assignments (that don’t count toward their final grade) instead of fewer, high-stakes ones. This method gives students many opportunities to apply a previous assignment’s feedback to their next one, and they therefore see that failing and receiving critical feedback helps them improve.
Colleges can also teach students to embrace failure by building a culture that normalizes it. One elite college began a program called “Failing Well” that offered a speaker series and various workshops that destigmatize failure. For instance, one workshop had students and faculty each build a resumé that listed their failures and what they learned from them.
After these fearful followers graduate from elite schools, their impact is widespread. Deresiewicz notes that many fearful followers become leaders, citing evidence that a disproportionate number of US government and business leaders are alumni of elite schools. More concerningly, he argues that many fearful followers become ineffective leaders.
The author shares three reasons why many leaders from elite schools are ineffective. First, they rarely outgrow their fixation on outshining their peers. This leads them to pursue leadership positions so they feel like they’re at the top, not because they actually want to improve society. Second, due to their fear of failure, these leaders avoid making radical decisions that could unleash positive social change. Lastly, because they missed out on opportunities for character-building and developing self-insight, these alumni lack the imagination to envision a better society and the communication skills to connect with those they lead.
Research supports Deresciewicz’s claims that people who fixate on outshining their peers, fear failure, and lack both imagination and communication skills make ineffective leaders. Let’s examine research on each of these traits.
Competitiveness: One study found that when business leaders fixate on outshining their competitors, they make poor decisions. This is because highly competitive scenarios (such as two companies bidding to acquire a third company) plunge leaders into an intense emotional state that compromises their decision-making abilities.
Fear of failure: Research reveals that leaders who fear failure often agonize over decisions, procrastinate on important tasks, and avoid positive risk-taking. When leaders are afraid of making mistakes, their fear causes decision paralysis. They therefore opt for the safest choice (even when it’s a poor one).
Communication: Experts who see leaders as collaborative changemakers argue that leaders must actively listen to others, clearly express themselves, and phrase feedback thoughtfully. Leaders who lack these communication skills struggle to collaborate with co-leaders and constituents.
Imagination: Research shows that leaders with strong imaginations have a greater capacity for seeing problems from multiple perspectives and envisioning novel solutions. Leaders who lack these skills make decisions that perpetuate the status quo rather than improve it.
So far, we’ve discussed how selective criteria shape the lives of admitted students and alumni. Next, we’ll consider the students who aren’t admitted. According to Deresiewicz, elite schools’ criteria are so selective and narrowly defined that mostly only upper-class students have the means to meet them. He argues that this exclusion of non-elite students perpetuates social inequality.
In this section, we’ll describe four factors that elite schools’ admissions teams consider. We’ll explain how each factor privileges affluent students. Then, we’ll explore why this exclusion of non-elite students perpetuates social inequality.
Admissions teams consider the following factors, each of which privileges upper-class students:
Standardized test scores. Admissions teams rely on these scores as a measure of intelligence, but the author cites evidence that standardized test scores correlate with family income instead of intelligence. This correlation reflects the fact that wealthy families can afford to access supports that boost their students’ scores, such as well-funded schools, test preparation courses, and tutors.
Leadership experience. The evidence admissions officers use to measure a student’s leadership potential reflects a bias toward leadership experiences wealthy students can access (such as service trips) over those of many lower-income students (such as providing childcare for siblings).
Extracurriculars. Elite schools prefer students who engage in many extracurricular activities, believing this indicates well-roundedness. However, these criteria privilege upper-class students, who are more likely to attend well-funded schools. Well-funded schools offer many extracurriculars such as sports and clubs.
Social identities. Elite colleges show a preference for students with identities associated with wealth and power, including legacy students (children of alumni). This is because these children and their families are more likely to pay full tuition and later become donors.
Recent Updates in Elite Colleges’ Admissions Criteria
Since the publishing of Excellent Sheep in 2014, some elite colleges have revised their admissions criteria. Let’s examine some of these updates.
Standardized test scores: In 2021, a number of elite colleges and universities made it optional for applicants to submit their standardized test scores. Many schools did this because the Covid-19 pandemic made it challenging to schedule exams. Some elite schools, such as MIT, have started requiring test scores again; others, such as Cornell, are gathering data to determine whether to make the switch to test-optional admissions permanent.
Leadership experience and extracurriculars: A 2016 report crafted by a coalition of college admissions officers (many from elite schools) recommended that when college admissions teams look for evidence of leadership and extracurriculars in prospective students, they should count experiences such as caring for younger siblings and providing income for their family. The report’s authors claim that this update would value the experience of non-elite students whose family responsibilities prevent them from pursuing other leadership experiences and extracurriculars. So far, close to 140 college admissions deans have committed to implementing the report’s suggestions.
Social identities: In recent years, many low-income and first-generation students have advocated for elite schools to eliminate their admissions bias towards legacy students. These advocates claim this bias excludes low-income students and students of color, since legacy students are predominantly white and upper-class. Some elite schools, such as Amherst College, have recently eliminated their preference for legacy students to make their admissions process more equitable.
The exclusion of non-elite students through these high, narrow criteria negatively impacts society. Specifically, Deresiewicz argues that elite schools’ exclusive admissions criteria stall social mobility. He offers two main reasons for this.
First, selective criteria that exclude non-elite students reduce their access to leadership positions. The author notes that attending an elite college opens doors for careers in political leadership. This means fewer people from lower-class backgrounds end up in positions that provide them with a platform for increasing social mobility.
(Shortform note: Not only are non-elite people excluded from schools that provide access to leadership positions, but they also face additional barriers to becoming political leaders. Research has found that fewer working-class people run for office in the first place. This is because many working-class people can’t afford to run, since political campaigning is time-intensive and expensive. Furthermore, although voters show no bias against working-class candidates, party leaders prefer supporting upper-class candidates over working-class ones.)
A second way elite schools’ admissions criteria stall social mobility is by limiting students’ opportunities for collaboration across social classes. As previously noted, democracy thrives when people collaborate to envision and fight for social change. Because elite colleges’ student bodies are majority upper class, there are few opportunities for students from various social classes to learn how to collaborate.
(Shortform note: Research suggests that it’s not just the low numbers of lower-class students on elite campuses that limits students’ opportunities for positive interaction across social classes. Lower-class students face exclusion even after they’re admitted. This exclusion prevents positive interactions across social classes. Research shows that some elite schools’ efforts to include low-income students actually reinforce class boundaries. For instance, one school recognized that low-income students need an income stream on campus, and their solution was to provide students with roles as dormitory custodians—roles that humiliated these students when they realized they were cleaning the dorms of their upper-class peers.)
Next, we’ll turn to the second problem with elite colleges and universities: the low quality of their academic programs. Deresiewicz argues that elite schools provide a low-quality education because they concern themselves more with generating profits that ensure their future existence than with the art of teaching. In this section, we’ll explore two ways elite schools prioritize profits over teaching. Then, we’ll investigate how this emphasis harms students and society.
The first way elite schools prioritize profits over teaching is by treating students like customers instead of learners. Deresciewicz argues that elite schools prioritize students’ customer satisfaction because, as previously noted, they rely on upper-class students’ financial support. These students’ families are more likely to pay full tuition, and they and their families are more likely to later become donors. Elite schools treat prospective students like customers by attracting them with unnecessary perks (such as free laundry service) that don’t improve the quality of education.
(Shortform note: Research on college budgets reveals that when elite schools invest in efforts to attract wealthy students, it leaves less funding for financial aid. This reduces non-elite students’ access to these colleges. In a podcast episode, journalist Malcolm Gladwell, author of Outliers, compared how two elite colleges allocated their funds. One college invested in top-tier dining hall food and offered less financial aid; the other provided mediocre dining hall food and offered generous financial aid. In analyzing these schools’ different approaches to budgeting, he argued that elite schools should prioritize making college more accessible to low-income students over efforts to attract high-income students.)
After students are admitted, elite schools maintain their customer satisfaction in two ways. First, they praise them excessively for their exceptional abilities. Second, they engage in grade inflation: giving them higher grades than they deserve.
The Harmful Effects of Grade Inflation and Ability-Based Praise
Research shows that grade inflation harms students by reducing their resilience in the face of challenges. Because of grade inflation, students don’t have to work as hard to do well. This reduces their stamina for challenges, leaving them ill-equipped to deal with the demands of post-college life.
Praising students for their abilities also weakens their resilience. Psychologist Carol Dweck, author of Mindset, found that teens praised for their ability performed worse on tasks than teens praised for their effort. Those praised for their ability avoided challenging tasks that could promote their learning because they feared exposing flaws in their abilities. By contrast, teens praised for their effort opted for these challenges: Effort-based praise motivated them to continue working hard. These findings are true for college students as well, suggesting that college professors can support students’ academic growth by praising them for their effort instead of their abilities.
A second way elite schools prioritize profits over teaching is by overemphasizing research. Deresiewicz argues that because professor-led research brings in funding, elite schools reward professors for research more than for teaching. These institutions incentivize a research focus through their tenure track system. When a committee decides whether to grant a professor a tenure track position, they give more weight to their research publications than to their strengths as a teacher.
(Shortform note: Research reveals that elite schools’ overemphasis on research not only compromises students’ learning but also compromises the quality of professors’ research. Institutions are more likely to reward tenure to professors who publish more research, since this is a straightforward way to assess their performance. This emphasis on quantity reduces quality: Because professors rush to produce more research, their findings sometimes promote false conclusions. To remedy this, experts recommend rewarding professors for producing research that improves society over producing more research.)
Next, let’s explore how elite schools’ focus on profits harms both students and society.
First, Deresiewicz argues that because research is so time-consuming, professors are unavailable to provide students with experiences that encourage self-insight and character-building. Professors, and less-experienced instructors hired to relieve them of their teaching obligations, provide students with facts and conclusions instead of opportunities to develop their own insights and conclusions.
The author argues that this model of teaching harms both students and society. As previously noted, when students lack opportunities for character-building and self-insight, they graduate less prepared to build a meaningful life and they’re ill-equipped to uphold democracy.
The Benefits of Involving Students in Research
Deresiewicz frames research as a negative aspect of professors’ work that pulls them away from students and compromises students’ character-building. However, professor research and student learning may be less mutually exclusive than he portrays.
Many elite institutions offer hands-on opportunities for students to learn by assisting professors with their research. For example, Harvard University offers summer science research opportunities for undergraduates. Studies have shown that faculty-student research collaborations such as these build students’ character. More specifically, these opportunities increase students’ curiosity and develop both their communication and collaboration skills.
Deresiewicz argues that elite schools’ treatment of students as customers reinforces harmful myths about meritocracy that perpetuate social inequality. A meritocracy is a system founded on the belief that people with high merit (academic strengths and talents) should have the most financial and political power.
The author claims that when elite schools shower their customer-students with praise about how exceptional they are, it sends students the message that they earned their place in the meritocracy. However, this message is a myth. The US isn’t a meritocracy because, as previously noted, affluent students with merit have more access to elite schools than non-affluent students with merit. This myth of meritocracy obscures the truth that social inequality, not lack of merit, excludes non-elite people, making it less likely that this inequality is addressed.
(Shortform note: Recent research supports Deresciewicz’s claim that unawareness of social inequality—in this case, unawareness created by the myth of meritocracy—further perpetuates that inequality. One simulation-based study found that when people playing the role of policymakers were unaware that taxpayers’ low incomes led them to pay minimal taxes, they assumed these taxpayers didn’t care about the public good. The roleplayers then punished the taxpayers with additional taxes. By contrast, when the roleplayers were aware of social inequality, they had the opposite reaction: They raised taxes on wealthier taxpayers. These findings suggest that awareness of social inequality influences peoples’ choices about wealth redistribution.)
Next, we’ll turn to Deresiewicz’s ideas on how to realize his vision of an ideal college education. We’ll begin by examining his solution to the first problem we discussed earlier: elite schools’ selective, exclusive admissions criteria. He proposes that Americans should replace their current system of higher education with a less-exclusive one that no longer privileges upper-class children. In this section, we’ll describe Deresiewicz’s recommendations for how governments, institutions of higher education, and parents can play a role in this solution.
The author claims that high school students will have equal opportunities to access high-quality education if the government equally funds all public schools. Because public schools are funded by property taxes, students living in lower-income communities attend underfunded schools and graduate from high school less prepared for college. Equalizing K-12 school funding would ensure all students attend high schools that prepare them for college.
Would Equalizing K-12 Funding Equalize Access to Elite Colleges?
Deresiewicz doesn’t specify whether this reform would equalize students’ access to college in general or particularly to elite colleges. Let’s explore if the latter would be true.
Equalizing school funding could make students from lower-income and higher-income communities less distinguishable from each other on some application criteria, such as standardized test scores and extracurriculars. This would equalize the admissions process to some degree.
However, other criteria—such as students’ social identities—reflect students’ family wealth as well as the wealth of their community. These criteria would still reveal students’ socioeconomic status, opening up the possibility for admissions teams to prefer wealthier students. In the next section, we’ll further explore the author’s ideas on reforming these admissions criteria as well.
Next, Deresiewicz argues that elite schools should replace their admissions criteria with criteria that no longer privilege the students of wealthy families. This reform would increase non-affluent students’ access to these schools, opening doors for them to become leaders with the power to reduce social inequality. Deresiewicz recommends college admissions teams overhaul their admissions criteria using three specific methods.
First, he recommends that admissions criteria show no bias towards students with social identities associated with wealth. This includes legacy students.
(Shortform note: As previously noted, in recent years, some elite schools have eliminated their preference for legacy students to make their admissions process more equitable. However, a law professor argues that when elite schools eliminate their preference for legacy students, they lose funding. This is because legacy students’ families often pay full tuition and later become donors. He warns that limited funding could reduce the quality of elite schools’ academics.)
To replace criteria that privilege wealthy students, the author recommends schools instead show a preference toward students with personality traits that signal they’ll be strong citizens and changemakers, such as students with original, creative ideas.
(Shortform note: What criteria could college admissions officers use to spot students who are original thinkers? One option is to ask high school teachers to evaluate their students’ creative abilities. Researchers have found that creativity ratings reflect no bias towards any particular racial group, suggesting that these criteria could both provide a window into students’ capacity for original thought and reduce racial stereotyping in the admissions process.)
Second, Deresciewicz claims that elite schools should increase equity by replacing their race-based affirmative action with class-based affirmative action. While race-based affirmative action increases racial diversity, he claims that it doesn’t significantly increase the socioeconomic diversity of the student body. This is because the students of color elite colleges admit typically come from wealthy families.
(Shortform note: Replacing race-based affirmative action with class-based affirmative action may increase campuses’ socioeconomic diversity, but experts warn doing so would create a new problem: reducing those campuses’ racial diversity. This is because the majority of low-income students are white, so increasing their access to elite colleges would reduce spots for students of color. Instead, experts recommend elite colleges increase both their racial and socioeconomic diversity by reducing their preferences for legacy students, who tend to be mostly white and wealthy.)
Lastly, Deresciewicz recommends elite schools overhaul their admissions criteria by replacing regular standardized test scores with weighted ones. Weighted standardized test scores are adjusted to reflect a student’s income level. The author argues this is a better measure of achievement than unweighted standardized test scores, since unweighted scores correlate with family income.
(Shortform note: Since the publishing of Excellent Sheep in 2014, some elite schools have started using a type of weighted standardized test score to increase admissions equity. The nonprofit organization that manages the SAT recently started assigning each test-taker an “adversity score.” This score quantifies students’ poverty level, and the organization sends it to colleges along with their test scores. Adversity scores have helped elite colleges, such as Yale, enroll more first-generation and low-income students.)
Finally, Deresiewicz believes that elite parents have a role to play in improving US higher education. He argues that parents of elite children should stop prioritizing the needs of their kids over those of less-affluent kids. He claims that when upper-class parents try to increase their children’s chances of getting into elite colleges, they both make their children miserable and give their kids an unfair advantage.
How Should Affluent Families Support Admissions Equity?
Deresiewicz doesn’t provide any specific action steps affluent parents should take to support their child’s path to college without prioritizing their needs over those of non-affluent children. A Harvard college admissions resource for families urges affluent parents to support admissions equity through the following actions:
Share resources with high school students in less-affluent areas. These resources could include admissions officers’ contact information, transportation to college tours, and test preparation books. This action would increase non-elite students’ access to information that could improve their chances of acceptance at a selective college.
Ask high schools to limit students’ extracurriculars. This would reduce the stress students experience when their schedule is overloaded with extracurriculars. If the high schools in question are in high-income areas, it would also reduce the admissions advantage affluent students have over students whose schools offer fewer extracurriculars.
Next, let’s consider solutions to the second problem with elite schools: their emphasis on profits over teaching. Deresiewicz offers recommendations for how colleges and universities, and college students themselves, can improve students’ educational experience. In this section, we’ll share his recommendations.
The author argues that elite schools should ensure that professors prioritize teaching over research. Shifting professors’ priorities would enable them to build students’ character and nurture their self-insight. As previously noted, their inspiring guidance would both enrich students’ lives and equip them with the skills to uphold democracy. The author argues that during the tenure evaluation process, professors’ teaching experience and strengths should be valued just as much as, or more than, their research experience.
The Role of Student Evaluations in Professors’ Teaching Quality
One way colleges and universities can value professors’ teaching is by reducing the role student evaluations play in assessing professors’ performance. A recent study found that teaching quality suffers when administrators overemphasize students’ evaluations of their professors.
This mode of evaluation reduces the quality of teaching because students tend to highly rate professors who amuse them, assign little work, and inflate their grades. By contrast, they give low ratings to professors who grade students accurately and provide rigorous teaching. Instead of emphasizing student evaluations during the tenure review process, schools could consider other evidence to evaluate teaching quality, such as video recordings of professors’ lessons.
Deresciewicz claims that college-age students don’t need to wait for these systemic changes to happen before they can experience a high-quality education. He urges students to actively create a high-quality education for themselves. Specifically, he encourages them to undermine the priorities of elite schools by prioritizing learning over prestige. By seeking experiences that prioritize learning, they can experience the benefits of self-insight and character-building. In this section, we’ll share Deresciewicz’s tips for how prospective and current college students can achieve this.
First, Deresciewicz advises prospective college students to disregard rankings and prestige. Measures of reputation reflect how profit-oriented and selective a school is, not the quality of its education. Instead, he implores students to attend second-tier liberal arts colleges and liberal arts colleges that are housed within public universities. He claims these schools are more likely to value a high-quality education over reputation.
(Shortform note: Several experts on college admissions agree with Deresciewicz’s assessment that rankings don’t always reflect a school’s quality of education. However, these experts point out that it's helpful to research schools’ rankings for particular programs. Some colleges and universities have certain programs that are strong, even if their overall rankings are low. Similarly, some strong colleges have weak programs. Before applying to any school, including second-tier colleges, high school students should check the quality of the programs they’re most interested in.)
Deresciewicz’s second tip for prospective college students is to shadow a current student at a college in which they’re interested to preview its culture and academic programs. He encourages them to look for evidence that the school deeply values learning, such as students that are intellectually curious (rather than stressed), professors who enjoy the art of teaching, and classes that prioritize character-building.
Make the Most of a College Tour
While not all colleges and universities offer the option to shadow a student, many colleges offer student-led tours that provide a window into schools’ cultures and academics. Former admissions officers recommend asking tour guides the following questions:
How do students like to spend their free time? This question provides insight into whether students are overwhelmed with extracurriculars, or whether they have the time to dedicate to intellectual curiosity.
What words would you use to describe the students here? The tour guide’s answer may reflect what character traits the school values.
What’s something you wish was different about this school? This question may reveal whether the school places enough emphasis on learning and character-building, and it may reveal concerns about the teaching quality of professors.
Deresciewicz argues that current college students can also actively create a high-quality education for themselves. In this section, we’ll share three of his tips for doing so.
First, he recommends that college students connect with inspiring professors. Although many professors are too occupied with research to form relationships with students, there are exceptions. College students can ask older students to recommend professors who are committed to the art of teaching. Then, they should attend these professors’ office hours to receive extra guidance on their journey towards self-insight.
(Shortform note: What are some ways college students can make the most of professors’ office hours? One resource advises them to see office hours as a chance to develop a relationship with a professor. This relationship could later grow into a mentorship. College students can start building this relationship by asking a professor to share more about their research interests. Additionally, students can share what they’re most curious about with a professor and request advice on what subjects or courses to pursue.)
Second, the author urges college students to follow their interests. Instead of automatically gravitating towards prestigious careers such as finance, they should take time to discover what subject areas ignite their curiosity. To explore their interests, they can take classes in a wide variety of subject areas and ask professors for guidance in selecting a good-fit major.
(Shortform note: Some college students whose interests don’t align with lucrative careers may have a hard time choosing between these majors and a major that’s more likely to guarantee a stable income. College career counselors, aware of this dilemma, advise students to choose a major based on the marketable skills it equips them with rather than the job that shares its name. For instance, a student wondering whether to major in history shouldn’t base their decision on whether they want to be a historian. Instead, they can consider some of the skills they’d gain majoring in history, such as writing and reading.)
Lastly, Deresciewicz advises college students to expect and embrace failure. They’ll make progress on their path towards self-insight if they learn from failure rather than fear it. Self-insight is a messy process that requires you to learn from your mistakes. He reminds students that when they receive constructive criticism from a professor, it’s an opportunity to learn and grow—not a sign they’re inadequate.
In Mindset, psychologist Carol Dweck argues that it’s possible to transition from fearing failure to having a “growth mindset” that embraces failure. She offers several recommendations that anyone (including college students) can follow to move towards a failure-embracing growth mindset:
Be patient with yourself. When facing a new experience, such as taking a class in a new subject area, don’t expect yourself to be perfect from the start. Remind yourself: Mastering something requires time, effort, and practice.
Welcome critical feedback. Typically, when a mentor, friend or loved one gives you feedback, it’s because they want to help you improve. Instead of taking the feedback as an indication that you’re a failure, remind yourself: Feedback helps me improve.
Reflect and try again. If you make a goal that you later fail to meet, reflect on how you could improve next time. Ask yourself, What did I fail to do the first time that I can do better next time?
Take some time to review the main takeaways from Excellent Sheep.
The author describes how elite schools’ selective criteria and focus on profits negatively affect students. Which of these effects was the most surprising or disturbing to you? Why?
The author also describes how elite schools’ selective criteria and focus on profits negatively affect society. Which of these effects was the most surprising or disturbing to you? Why?
The author proposes a variety of solutions for reducing elite US schools’ negative effects on students and society. Which of these solutions do you think would be most successful? Why?
What role could you play in any of these solutions the author proposes? (For example, consider any high schools or colleges in your neighborhood. How could you encourage these schools to prioritize teaching experiences that nurture self-insight? How could you advocate for making access to these schools more equitable?)
Excellent Sheep explores how the education a student receives influences their opportunities, self-insight, and skillset. Take a moment now to reflect on how your educational experience has impacted you and what hopes you have for future educational experiences.
What role has privilege, and/or a lack of privilege, played in your education? (Consider factors such as your social identity and your access to college preparation resources. For example, a student from a low-income family may feel the need to major in a field that would guarantee them a high-paying job after college.)
The author describes a high-quality education as one that encourages self-insight and helps students build a meaningful life. What’s an educational experience you’ve had that helped you develop self-insight and move towards your vision for a meaningful life? (Reflect on any experience you consider to have been educational. It could be an experience from formal schooling, such as a high school history class that encouraged cross-cultural understanding. Or, it could be an experience outside of schooling, such as learning compassion through coaching a basketball team.)
What are some educational experiences you could seek out in the future to further develop your self-insight and capacity for building a meaningful life? (For example, you could sign up for therapy or host a foreign exchange student.)