:

Now several new and thoughtful books are asking whether it is fair that ostensibly meritocratic societies have handed such extensive power to a small clutch of academic institutions. Though each comes at the question differently, they all conclude that the winner take all approach to tertiary education must change.

Evan Mandery, author of Poison Ivy, focuses primarily on class. A contemporary of mine at Harvard, he now teaches at John Jay College within the publicly funded City University of New York, which gives him insight to both America’s elite and its striving lower and middle classes. His book attempts to demolish claims by the most prestigious US schools that they dedicate their tax breaks, gigantic endowments and selective admissions for the greater good.

He marshals statistics and personal stories to show that the top schools mostly educate rich people and steer them into lucrative careers that equip them to send their children and donations back to their alma maters. Sixty-three per cent of Harvard’s 2020 graduates went into finance, consulting or technology, he reports. By contrast, about 60 per cent of John Jay students work for the government or a not-for-profit organisation. “Elite colleges are exceptionally good at keeping rich kids rich,” writes Mandery.

While the few poor students who attend rich colleges see an increase in social mobility, the impact is small. Three CUNY colleges lead the nation in economic mobility: at least 10 per cent of graduates move from the lowest quintile in income to the top quintile; Harvard and Princeton fail to crack 2 per cent.