NYT readers surprisingly conservative on education
NYT’s Readers’ Comments feature offers an odd hybrid: all the vitriol of a blog, with the staid design of an NYT letters section. I’ve been following the comments more closely lately in the wake of Harvard’s decision to eliminate early admission. Some have applauded Harvard — and Princeton, which has followed suit — for removing a system that may disproportionately benefit well-to-do applicants. However, others have derided the move as a publicity stunt, or worried that eliminating early admission would harm Ivy League institutions. Interestingly, the NYT Readers’ Comments tend toward the latter opinion.
Despite the Times’s much-vaunted liberal slant, many readers didn’t support what is arguably a liberalizing movement in admissions. In my informal survey of the first 20 comments, nine favored keeping early admission in place, while six thought it was a good idea to eliminate it (the rest did not take a position, or wrote letters that I found unintelligible). One reader, Greg, opined,
If someone cannot get himself together enough to apply to Princeton early, perhaps he should not be accepted anyhow? I think ending early admission is little more than the continued pandering to the lower class that seems en vouge in the nation’s top universities in recent times.
Another, David, wrote,
People need to open their eyes and realize that these are private institutions and if they want to stay on top, they cannot succumb to the current American epidemic. Why do you think we are falling behind other countries’ education system? Because they only accept the most qualified, and they have no qualms about it.
David’s comment exemplifies a general fear that leveling the playing field for America’s top institutions will make America less competitive in the global marketplace. But that’s not necessarily true.
The generally fiscally conservative Economist has been running articles for months now arguing that companies must employ, retain, and promote women if they hope to compete — they can’t afford to ignore half the world’s population, or allow them to drop out just when they are building expertise because family-friendly schedules aren’t available. A similar thing may well be true of those now growing up with low incomes in America. These young men and women have not grown up with the advantages of the middle and upper classes, and they may need help catching up to their more fortunate peers. But are the children of privilege really so talented that we can afford to rest the entire future of our country on them? Doesn’t it behoove us to create a system in which our knowledge economy can draw on the whole population, not just a lucky few? Don’t we want as many smart people as possible working in America?
NYT readers are likely an educated group, and they of all people should be interested in making top-notch education a possibility for everyone. It’s interesting, however, to find NYT readers straying far from liberal orthodoxy here. Perhaps NYT — at least on the web — isn’t the liberal rag it’s made out to be? Stay tuned for further research.