American [Academic] Aristocracy

For John, BLUF:  Is it really smart people or is it really people who have inherited "middle class values"?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From The Economist, a few days ago, is a provocative article, "America’s new aristocracy".

The thesis of this article is that "As the importance of intellectual capital grows, privilege has become increasingly heritable." Then, with a pun of "Matches made in New Haven" the article swings into action.♠

Intellectual capital drives the knowledge economy, so those who have lots of it get a fat slice of the pie.  And it is increasingly heritable. Far more than in previous generations, clever, successful men marry clever, successful women.  Such “assortative mating” increases inequality by 25%, by one estimate, since two-degree households typically enjoy two large incomes. Power couples conceive bright children and bring them up in stable homes—only 9% of college-educated mothers who give birth each year are unmarried, compared with 61% of high-school dropouts.  They stimulate them relentlessly: children of professionals hear 32m more words by the age of four than those of parents on welfare. They move to pricey neighbourhoods with good schools, spend a packet on flute lessons and pull strings to get junior into a top-notch college.

The universities that mould the American elite seek out talented recruits from all backgrounds, and clever poor children who make it to the Ivy League may have their fees waived entirely.  But middle-class students have to rack up huge debts to attend college, especially if they want a post-graduate degree, which many desirable jobs now require.  The link between parental income and a child’s academic success has grown stronger, as clever people become richer and splash out on their daughter’s Mandarin tutor, and education matters more than it used to, because the demand for brainpower has soared.  A young college graduate earns 63% more than a high-school graduate if both work full-time—and the high-school graduate is much less likely to work at all.  For those at the top of the pile, moving straight from the best universities into the best jobs, the potential rewards are greater than they have ever been.

Here are some of the proposals:

• Nurseries, in place of parents.  I am not keen on this as a solution.  I would prefer helping the parents do better, rather than replacing them.
• Break the grip of teachers' unions.  The argument is that unions "resist any hint that good teaching should be rewarded or bad teachers fired."  I am not against unions, which have been part of our national economic success, but The Economist has a point.  Over at the Althouse blog we have the question, "How hard is it to fire a public school teacher in New York?"  The answer is This hard.
• The article notes that "Only a handful [of universities], such as Caltech, admit applicants solely on academic merit."  Academic merit runs counter to a number of current approaches, from preferences for "Legacies" to advantages for minorities.  On the other hand, a Slippery Rock graduate doesn't have the same cachet as a graduate of Yale or Harvard.

Perhaps echoing Senator E Warrant, the article ends:

Loosening the link between birth and success would make America richer—far too much talent is currently wasted. It might also make the nation more cohesive. If Americans suspect that the game is rigged, they may be tempted to vote for demagogues of the right or left—especially if the grown-up alternative is another Clinton or yet another Bush.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  The Economist seems to privilege Yale over Harvard.