Poison Ivy: How Elite Colleges Divide Us

by Evan Mandery

Next Big Idea Book Club  Nominee October 2022

An eye-opening look at how America’s elite colleges and suburbs help keep the rich rich—making it harder than ever to fight the inequality dividing us today The front-page news and the trials that followed Operation Varsity Blues were just the tip of the iceberg. Poison Ivy tells the bigger, seedier story of how elite colleges create paths to admission available only to the wealthy, despite rhetoric to the contrary. Evan Mandery reveals how tacit agreements between exclusive “Ivy-plus” schools and white affluent suburbs create widespread de facto segregation. And as a college degree continues to be the surest route to upward mobility, the inequality bred in our broken higher education system is now a principal driver of skyrocketing income inequality everywhere. Mandery—a professor at a public college that serves low- and middle-income students—contrasts the lip service paid to “opportunity” by so many elite colleges and universities with schools that actually walk the walk. Weaving in shocking data and captivating interviews with students and administrators alike, Poison Ivy also synthesizes fascinating insider information on everything from how students are evaluated, unfair tax breaks, and questionable fundraising practices to suburban rituals, testing, tutoring, tuition schemes, and more. This bold, provocative indictment of America’s elite colleges shows us what’s at stake in a faulty system—and what will be possible if we muster the collective will to transform it.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Education, Sociology, Social Justice, Economics

384 pages, Hardcover

Published October 25, 2022

About the author

Evan Mandery is the author of eight books, including four novels, as well as the co-creator and executive producer of the TV series Artificial, for which he won Peabody and Emmy awards in 2019. A leading expert on the death penalty, Evan’s book, A Wild Justice: The Death and Resurrection of Capital Punishment in America, was a New York Times Editors’ Pick, a Kirkus best book of the year, and an ABA Silver Gavel honorable mention. A graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, Evan has been an outspoken critic of legacy admissions since publishing an op-ed in The New York Times in 2014. His new book Poison Ivy: How Elite Colleges Divide Us offers a devastating critique of how elite colleges and suburbs work together to exacerbate social inequality. Evan is also a regular contributor to Politico. He lives in Montclair, New Jersey with his wife, Valli Rajah-Mandery, a sociologist. They have three children.

Reviews

[Christopher Febles · Rating 4 out of 5]

To myself, I titled this, “How I Would Run Things in the Two Weeks I’d Serve as Dean of Admissions Somewhere Before I’m Assassinated.” But, given the incoming administration, a more accurate title might be, “Sh-t That Will Never, Ever Happen. Ever.”

Evan Mandery starts with the cover image in mind: college admissions is a nasty, prickly business. But he immediately dives deeper, showing with data and evidence that for everyone except the rich, elite colleges are impossible to get into. It’s a sad, sad story, so if you have a weak stomach (and a medium-sized wallet), you might want to look away.



Some of these things weren’t much of a surprise. SAT scores and Early Decision programs favor wealthy kids…yep. Nor should you be shocked that elite colleges give preferences to legacies, children of faculty, potential donors, and athletes. In that last category, don’t just think football and basketball: think lacrosse, crew, sailing, even baseball and ice hockey, sports that require lots of money to thrive. Yes, 99 percent of us don’t meet those categories, so we’ve got the equivalent of a pair of sixes while the wealthy have a royal straight. Not breaking news, but Mandery really gets in-depth, opening my eyes to a few areas I hadn’t considered.

But he also shares ideas for change, and the obstacles in place for them to take root. These might be a little complicated for the layperson, but some are simple. For instance, Harvard could take just one measly percent of its $52B endowment to provide financial aid for huge swaths of its students, and thereby provide the upward mobility and socioeconomic diversity it claims to have (Baruch College does WAY better). But alas, the average family income of a Crimson kid is well over half a mil. What will it take for the elites to stay true to the promise of social mobility for all? A lot of courage and daring, both sorely lacking among the Ivy Plus.

I enjoyed Mandery’s comparison of his Harvard experience and his teaching at John Jay (CUNY). Clearly the lower- and middle-income kids have the short end of the stick, and they’re working hard to have their degrees make a difference. And it’s inspiring to know how many CUNY graduates go on to helpful careers in education and health care, and disheartening to see elite grads take the path to financial consulting and greater riches. I like to think the so-called “best and brightest” might forgo the gilded streets and use their talents for good. A guy can dream.

One caveat for all those parents and kids hanging their heads: this describes elite colleges, not the vast majority of the two thousand in the USA. In my time as a counselor, I’ve never been surer of this: college is what you make of it. Sure, you can sit around and wait for the college to transform you with little of your own effort. Plenty of elites do it and still get jobs at McKinsey, and as a college coach once told me, “C’s get degrees.”

But look around, and you’ll see that the people you cherish the most did it without SAT tutors, fancy coaches, and (yeesh) independent college counselors. They made themselves who they are through diving into the fascinating world of knowledge, meeting with professors, working hard at that internship or job, maybe even while helping their family. For that matter, most people I love have a different definition of success: love of learning, love of others, dedication to making the world a better place. No college has a blueprint on that, and if you’re REALLY smart, you’ll know where to find those people, seek them out, and get inspired. You don’t need a Harvard degree to be a hero of mine.



Wonderful research and writing, and a must read for anyone interested in improving education for all, at all levels. Go get it!

[Jeanette · Rating 3 out of 5]

His research and tone are mixed. Sometimes his criteria/ proof and data are extremely compelling. The title and argument of the book is true. Even in our own extended family and considerable numbers of acquaintances over the years- these "admittance" and percentages of colleges of elite status accepting people from families of middle class with family incomes under $72,000. It's just rare. They say they accept this group on scholarship of some grant or whatever but in actual survey- you can observe how little that is true.

The legacy acceptance is 100 times the normal. And all else to do with government embedding etc.- absolutely spot on.

But he slants politico to "solve" far more and also, IMHO, in error to some points too. It's almost as if he knows what he knows and outcomes for sure. But he still does not know what he does NOT know and is looking through very elite and coastal eyes to chart and to judge.

They do divide. More every year. And teach a terrible message for the mental and the spiritual conditions of their followings. Not in financials either, as much as cognitive dissonance with both self-identity and the majority population.

[Marcos Urrea · Rating 5 out of 5]

Phenomenal book! I feel incredibly validated in my college experience, in my understanding of the world, and in a lot of reading I've done up til now about the history of the country and the systems of inequality that exist.

The basic argument is that the idea that, in particular the Ivy League schools, but colleges in general, serve as a system of upward mobility is a fallacy. In fact, Mandery argues the opposite: that Ivy League schools serve as a tool in maintaining the status quo and help to keep the elites at the top of the socio-economic hierarchy.

He discusses everything from the admissions processes to the type of work that graduates from certain schools tend to do, he talks about school districts and food insecurity among many other topics, and how it's all connected to create the system of inequality we see in the US in particular.

A must read!

I'd also recommend this book along with a couple of books that are cited within, including The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein, and Just Mercy by Brian Stephenson.

[R Veras · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mandery has hit the nail on the head with this book. He does an excellent job of compiling and analyzing the statistics and information of the wicked admissions process of the Ivy League and other big names schools to reveal the greater overarching reality of it all.

In principle, Ivy League schools do not care whether a student is rich or not. If a student is rich, then they can afford to pay their tuition themselves. In the situation that a student is not as fortunate, then said the school will match the student with a more approachable price. Though, in practice, elite schools have a preference towards the wealthy. Of course, this doesn't mean that someone of middle-class or low-class can't get accepted into Harvard or Yale, but being wealthy has far more advantages when getting into Ivy League and other prestigious schools. This may be in the form of legacies, donations, accessibility to resources (Such as extra-curricular, programs, test-prep, SAT prep, essay editing services, graduating from private schools, et cetera.), and networks that could help parents leverage their child closer to getting in.

Well, what if the lower-class student is just as bright - if not, more - as their wealthy counterpart? That changes nearly nothing, still. The student that comes from more money will have the higher hand when put beside the college application of the other.

If you are a student in college, a student in high school, a former college graduate, read this book. You will get enraged at how stupidly unfair this all is- Just to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. Mandery reveals how students from low-class communities are rendered as less capable and worthy of education by the admissions committees of elite schools.

This book can be so frustrating and exhausting at times, but I feel as it should be read by many. It offers a true insight into what happens behind the facilities we've learned to hold at such a high pedal stool.

I'm very thankful to have read this book and to have learned the things I have from it.

(Also, what a catchy title. I didn't know where else to implement this, but really, how clever is that?)

[Sara · Rating 4 out of 5]

As I began reading this book, I thought that it simply confirmed everything I suspected and had read about the inequities in our higher education system. But as I continued, the author got into the weeds and I found even MORE proof in far different areas than I had considered previously. This book would be useful for anyone working for more equity in education because it is filled with statistics, reports, and information that could be used by nonprofits to request grants. All the work is presented here. But, it is also a very readable and personal account as the author relays stories of students and others that he's interacted with.

If you've any interest at all in this topic, you already know that the ivy is pretty poisoned. This will both affirm and enhance your understanding of how systemic and endemic the poison is.

Thank you to NetGalley for an advance copy of this book. I hope it finds its way to every high school guidance counselor's bookshelf!

[William · Rating 4 out of 5]

Higher education in the U.S. is certainly in a mess, and Mandery's book more or less makes it clear why, albeit without intending to pursue that theme. There is a lot wrong with this book; it is a one-sided view where there are no gray areas. There is a case for using standardized testing in admissions, for instance, if a school's research can justify that it helps better inform admission decisions. (I have seen it done). The problem with testing, to me anyway, was how it was used. It is plausible to read scores in context, and discount high ones from wealthy areas and see strength in some modest ones from different social and educational contexts.

Another example is the Posse program, which I knew well from participating in its selection process for a number of years. It never impressed me. Posse does some good things, but also has a number of detractors including several schools which dropped their affiliation. But overall, Mandery makes a number of good points, though he has a number of erroneous perceptions and some omissions..

I should probably mention that I worked in admissions for many years, including at one Ivy and two other schools mentioned frequently in this book.

There are a number of points which are well-taken and with which I agree. (1) I have never seen justification for athletic preferences in admission to the most selective schools. I am ok with it being limited to the sports which provide significant spectator entertainment to the campus, but who watches sailing or crew or most of the 30 other sports for which these schools recruit? (2) Colleges, even the ones which seem generous, are deceptive about financial aid. "Need-blind" sounds good, but as Mandery points out, it does pay attention to the lack of need, and also in compiling a need-based award can reduce the aid awarded if they so desire. (3) The discussion of arrogant endowment protocols is convincing, as is the argument against rich schools being totally tax-exempt. (4) The Ivy etc. focus these days on sending more than half their graduates into management consulting, investment banking and tech careers makes me wonder why these schools are so popular. (5) The USNews and other college ratings are worthless and a negative force in the college admission process.

The major flaw in the book is the constant comparison of institutions like Harvard with places like John Jay (where Mandery teaches) and Frederick Douglass HS (misspelled in the book). There are a host of schools in between these extremes which do a lot more for diversity (I worked for one). The role of less selective private institutions and non-flagship publics would add a lot to this discussion.
I certainly want low SES students to have access to the most prestigious schools, but also find myself wondering why they would want this unless they aspire to the three careers for which these schools prepare their alumni.

Also missing from the narrative is the process of rating college and university bond issues. I sat in on meetings with slick and callow young MBAs who had no sense of education aside from numbers, used the same way USNews does. Sure, colleges are failing, but how many, actually? There is no justification to be for a curve estimating risk; there are some very weak schools and I can see the risk for investors there; I have no evidence that any other institutions have ever defaulted on their borrowing.

Where the book is weakest is in Mandery's discussion of college admissions, which he simply does not understand. Underfunded schools, for instance, too often are unable support college admissions visits well and colleges have responded by creating a range of other outreach activities, especially connections with community based organizations.

I also resent Mandery's cheap shot at independent educational professionals, whom he terms "evil." That is work I happen to do, and am proud of. He needs to be aware that there are two professional organizations with ethical standards for membership and behavior, and almost all IECs work with pro bono clients. I know of no consultants who would write an admission essay for a student. Consultants have arisen because college admissions has become absurdly complicated, admission offices often either are untruthful or withhold information, and underfunded public schools overburden their college counseling offices. I do not understand why schools have aspired to 5% admission rates, or why any sane and sensitive person would want to participate in work that would entail.

In the end this is a depressing book despite Mandery offering a number of worthwhile changes in how things are now. The problem is the deterioration of Americana society, the context in which higher education and its admission process takes place. A major problem is the misplaced belief that the most successful people are better than others and have succeeded because of their special acumen, rather than luck. I mean, c'mon, anyone admitted to a school with a 5% admission rate benefits from luck. There are tons of applicants who are equally qualified. (I have to add that working now with families rather than institutions, I have little confidence in the sensitivity with which applications are evaluated). The too-prevalent current belief in earning way more money than one can spend makes the uber-selective schools attractive, and will generate hordes of applications. And America's obsession with rankings will sustain the current inequitable situation, even when the rankings have no validity. I support the changes Mandery proposes, but I'm afraid I can't see them as more than tweaks.

[Michael · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good book and very compelling at the beginning, but as it progresses he delves deeper into more biased views and loses sight of elite colleges diverging into other topics.

[Ken · Rating 5 out of 5]

He nails it. I don’t agree with all his prescriptions, but I can’t deny his refreshing, informative and inspirational writing hits home hard. 👍🏼👍🏼

[Or-el · Rating 3 out of 5]

It’s a valuable read about a pressing subject. But the author does sometimes play fast and loose with facts. As but one example, he notes the decline from 2016-20 of Pell Grant spending, blaming the Trump administration. But he fails to note that the trend began in 2012, predating Trump. There are similar glosses and quick bytes that support his point that are similarly misleading. It is notable, for example, that many universities assist with gaining careers in high-earning professions. Less clear is why this is necessarily bad for many students to be encouraged towards, or whether that’s more a function of the students’ desires once they reach university and are forced towards an adult lifestyle that involves budgeting for one’s financial future and wishes. Notably, the author likewise defines “doing good” very narrowly; a California Supreme Court justice, for example, is lumped with others to conclude “no one is a do-gooder”, a curious charge for a public servant no doubt seeking to “do good” in shaping the legal sphere. The definition of “do gooder” seems limited to “spen[ding] [your] life teaching or working with poor children”, which is a strange criteria.

In other places, the book highlights important points. Universities are certainly doing far less than they could to encourage opportunity and social mobility. They are certainly sitting on large funds they manage conservatively, especially at the top, that could be used to better the experience of students, but instead pad the salaries of administrators (undiscussed in most of the book, unfortunately) and amenities that primarily benefit wealthier students. Schools pay little attention to valuable, difficult work experiences that many poor students have and endured while achieving top grades. All of this suggests that some prescriptive measures are warranted, though the author proposes some that seem unrealistic and unhelpful, and others that are better. Ending legacy admissions, for example, seems eminently sensible.

The author might have spent more time discussing the often-referred-to origins of the college admissions system in current form, in its original motivation of keeping Jews out of universities. That might also have provided an important lesson and example for how to change universities. Those policies and beliefs shifted with time, and Jewish students began to attend many more universities. How? Why? Can those successes be applied to economic diversity admissions goals? Why and why not? That engagement might have provided an interesting avenue for research that was left unexplored.

One last bit: for a law professor, the author seriously seems to misunderstand the opinion in the Harvard affirmative action case. He notes Judge Burroughs’ opinion has a “premise” that “seems to be that ending preferences that benefit affluent whites requires also ending preferences that benefit historically disadvantaged groups”. That is wildly irrelevant to the case. The question before Judge Burroughs was whether alternative policies could achieve the same levels of diversity as affirmative action. So when Judge Burroughs writes that the alternative solutions would not achieve the same outcomes, she is not rejecting those alternatives. She is merely saying that the alternatives cannot replace affirmative action in their effect on diversity. The case did not ask her to put those alternatives into place on top of affirmative action, hence her opinion’s focus. I’d have hoped a professor of law might have understood this basic fact of her opinion, which was limited by the Complaint and by the fact it ultimately was about affirmative action, which it upheld.

PS for the author: JFK is not the one who asked “if not you, who? If not now, when?” The saying comes from famed Jewish sage Hillel the Elder, who said it almost two thousand years before JFK. JFK used it with a slight variation that the author gets wrong. Instead of “if not you, who”, JFK said “if not us, who”. So all the worse that the author is quoting a Jewish sage without attribution, and attributing the wrong quote to JFK. As with so much else, the author might benefit from digging slightly deeper into his sources.

[EricheBooks · Rating 2 out of 5]

I had to DNF before the last chapter to stop my brain from leaking out.

Cherry picked evidence. Delusions about how government functions (because did “elite” colleges losing federal funding actually help a single CUNY, please show me the evidence). He will validate a source by saying “You should really trust this guy Al” (p. 259) then rant and rave about how Harvard is creating social inequality — with zero evidence. Tax rates, No Child Left Behind and the gutted DOE have FAR more to do with the public than Harvard University.

There are SOME good points for educational equity, but he breezes past ALL HIS OWN EVIDENCE that his suggestions/solutions and even his ideas are not widely validated or even mildly successful. It’s hilarious to go through and find all the sentences written back to back that downright contradict the previous point (personal family, see my extensive highlights and underlines).

Cherry picking elite schools in the Northeast like the Varsity Blues scandal didn’t happen IN CALIFORNIA (it features majorly in the book) suggests that this man has a bone to pick with institutions he feels owe him something in the Northeast.

But why the hell does Harvard owe anyone anything that their GOVERNMENT doesn’t? If you don’t believe in private education (which some left wing people do not), the solution is almost certainly legislation against it AFTER ensuring the maximum amount of federal funding has been directed towards public education for 2-3 decades. Not cherry picking and targeting “elite” schools while ignoring facts such as — the allegedly non-elite Sarah Lawrence had the highest tuition in the entire country at the time of writing this book. So does Syracuse University at this time.

So the measure of elite is… the ranking system he says means nothing… He actually spends chapters explaining the ranking system (which he then bases the thesis of the book off of) means nothing. Let that sink in how strong I am to have kept reading this.

It just seems like totally misdirected, impotent and poorly supported by evidence rage. I went in expecting to relate and to have my mind changed, but this book is exactly why sociology departments around the country would face serious funding issues if anyone with a scientific background conducted deep analysis of their “work”.

For the record, I came into this because I despise so much of Middlebury’s culture as an alumni that I honestly wanted to nod along and “YAS QUEEN” the entire book. Sadly, my left eye is twitching and I am even more convinced than ever in personal thorough vetting of your child’s education. This did not convince me of anything and the few good points, the average person picking this book up can intuit on their own.

I was happy to support an independent author, believe in his intellectual freedom and support others doing the same as well, even if you disagree. Kudos to him for structuring an argument (albeit weak) and offering some suggestions (which I despised) on how to improve the system.

[Sam Reither · Rating 5 out of 5]

Everyone should read this book, but especially those who went/go to private colleges and came from upper middle class/upper class backgrounds. A lot of ppl at these schools truly believe they earned their place, and don't really understand everything that has underwrote their success.

Some of the reforms Evan writes about that we could do to make sure their is more upward mobility and more downward mobility are very interesting. Almost no one at elite schools discusses things like this.

A lot of ppl I know defend legacy admissions, and defend preferred admissions to lacrosse players, and defend letting in a bunch of rich ppl over middle and lower class kids. Evan dismantles all of these arguments and really opens your mind as to what a fair system would really look like.

Awesome read. Highly recommend.

[Nicky · Rating 4 out of 5]

This bombshell book is a startling wake up call for anyone, like me, that held the Ivy Leagues in high regard. Mandery cites statistics to back up his points and they are spaced appropriately so that they don't overwhelm. There are personal anecdotes and stories throughout and frankly I hate when nonfiction books do that because it distracts from the hard statistics and the bigger-picture points being made. But his use of these stories and anecdotes does serve one purpose well-it humanizes the people being affected by Ivy school policies. I feel much better now about choosing to go to public schools for my degrees and for choosing a career in public service afterwards. My opinion of Ivies and what they actually offer society has certainly changed.

[Haleh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very readable book about the inequities in elite college admissions by a professor at City University of New York's John Jay College of Criminal Justice, where most of his students are from low and middle income backgrounds. Mandery's book is meticulously researched, with data to back up his statements. There are some moving individual stories with socioeconomically disadvantaged students trying to access high end education. He provides evidence to show that elite colleges continue to sustain the status quo of the privileged, while not doing much to change the lives of those without the same advantages.

[Emma Zucati · Rating 5 out of 5]

It was missing a bit of perspective and nuance, that I think comes from only living on the east coast but overall it had a lot of really good thoughts around the current state of universities in America. I picked this book up off the shelf because the premise was interesting and, as someone who is not in academia, I found it easy to follow and with a really good line of sight the whole time. Arguments were constructed in a way I could understand, and make conversation about with other people later. And I do talk about it quite a bit honestly, a lot when I first read it but still sometimes now months later I'll bring up something I learned in this book.

[Jarrod Sio · Rating 4 out of 5]

“We’re going to be talking a lot about lacrosse”, Evan Mandery promised. This pedantry was not to last, however. Just two pages later, he made this attention-grabbing statement:

“The United States maintains an apartheid educational system.”

Whoa. Talk about intense.

He checked his privilege early in this book and disclosed that he went to Harvard, thereby signalling that he is well-placed to write about elite colleges and more importantly, critique them. Central to the book’s thesis is the assertion that elite colleges shape the way Americans view success, and indeed determine the idols they, as a collective, worship.

[Angela · Rating 5 out of 5]

I started reading this a few weeks after the SCOTUS decision on race-conscious admissions. And while I knew the admissions process for elite colleges was anything but equitable, the author definitely did his homework. He brought to light just how embedded these inequalities are and how elite institutions of higher learning, by design, ensure the rich stay rich while systematically denying access to students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds.
If this is a topic of interest, I highly recommend reading. This book is an eye-opener.

[Errol Laurie · Rating 2 out of 5]

I know the correlation causation phrase has been beaten to death, but my god man when seemingly every meaningful point you make is littered with mentions of the former and absolutely no attempt to prove the latter, I've gotta call a strike here. Not to mention the pretty blatant omission of data that would run counterpoint to many of his examples using only one side or fragment of information.

I do agree elite colleges have too much money and don't do enough positive things with it, but that's where our agreements end. I stuck with it though because I don't want to fall into a bubble trap

[Zoe · Rating 5 out of 5]

Changed my thinking

I’m a Yale prof and a Harvard alum whose kid will soon be applying to college, and this book is changing how I think about higher education. It’s full of data and facts, grounded in sociology work but broad reaching. The title and some bits here and there might sound sensational, but the proposed reforms are modest and hard to argue with. Will be recommending and thinking about and talking about this book a LOT.

[Erin · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really loved the message of this book -- that higher ed in America is fundamentally unfair -- but it was a little dry/numbers heavy for me at times. Still, I was able to skim those parts, and I do highly recommend this one for anyone interested in the future of eduction.

[Hank Ng · Rating 4 out of 5]

How elite colleges shape and promote inequality, inoculating the wealthy from downward mobility, legacy and athletic admissions. Especially in light of the supreme Court ruling striking down affirmative action, this has been an informative take on the ivy plus colleges

[Christine · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was too depressed to finish. Here’s one reason why, “Elite colleges are exceptionally good at keeping rich kids rich.” I wrongly believed that it didn’t matter where you went to college, that what mattered was your determination and drive.

[Smita · Rating 4 out of 5]

Is it common knowledge that elite educational institutions serve to preserve the current system of wealth enjoyed by the silver-spooned elite? I should think so.

However, Mandery’s well-researched, comprehensive analysis of “How Elite Colleges Divide Us” is enlightening. Through fascinating anecdotes about real individuals who try to achieve the American Dream by wading through the quagmire of the American education system, this graduate of Harvard law school and now professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice (CUNY), proves that Americans who make up middle-and-low-income class brackets are by and large excluded from elite universities due to a system entrenched in preserving elitist values.

He argues that while stories like that of Liz Murray, a girl who journeyed from the foster care system to Harvard University, exist, they are few and far between. Mandery warns about the dangers of perpetuating the myth that the American education system strives to elevate individuals by providing equal access to education and thus a promising future. He cautions that by getting weepy-eyed and inspired by movies like Homeless to Harvard (about Liz Murray’s unique rags-to-ivy-league-riches story) we are ignoring the dirty truth—elite colleges statistically do nothing to serve low socioeconomic students.

This book perfectly pairs with A Raisin in the Sun as it examines racial and economic issues that create inequality in a country which has a flawed system of meritocracy.

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/534/...

Topics Addressed:
-How the SAT & ACT are designed to favor wealthier students;
-The rise in 504 designations for extra time in wealthier school districts;

[Devon Main · Rating 5 out of 5]

A pressing investigation into the inequities that underlie and are perpetuated by elite U.S. colleges.

[Nicole · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was powerful | Well researched, great references | I loved the postscript

[Francesca Morrissey · Rating 4 out of 5]

An important read for anyone considering an Ivy League education. If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Most of us are part of the problem.

[OG · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pretty weighty and mind/eye opening reflection on how elite colleges not only exacerbate socioeconomic & racial inequality, but indeed shape and create this inequality across schools and suburbs. Many of the core arguments he makes are familiar, but the details, data, and anecdotes he provides to support them are new and profound. It has changed the depth and critical eye I will bring to thinking about college and elite schools' role in the social world. He offers a grounding call to action -- for 'one percent' (incremental) solutions on the part of colleges and the individuals connected to them. It has inspired me to both engage in helping local, marginalized students navigate this system designed to be elitist & exclusionary and to engage in more advocacy with my position as an Amherst College alumn to reform the school's practices to support more equity.