Time for America To Get Over Our Ivy League Obsession | Opinion

Despite their relatively small number, Ivy League schools exert a disproportionately large influence on the training of America's political elite. Sixteen former U.S. presidents are Ivy League alumni, and both the current Republican presidential candidate and his running mate have graduated from these prestigious institutions.

At first glance, the brashness of figures like Donald Trump and JD Vance might seem at odds with the polished, refined image traditionally associated with Ivy League schools. However, their rhetoric can be traced back to the same meritocratic myth that these institutions have long championed.

Historically, elite institutions such as Harvard, Yale, and the University of Pennsylvania have served as finishing schools for America's wealthiest and most privileged families. Admission and graduation requirements for these schools were often lenient, with success more reliant on family wealth and connections than individual merit. As a result, these schools have perpetuated a system where high-status positions were more accessible to those with privilege than to those with inherent talent or hard work.

This dynamic has led to a widespread belief that Ivy League schools are the true arbiters of success. Employers often prefer candidates from these prestigious institutions, and families make significant sacrifices to secure spots for their children. In response to this demand, Ivy League schools have made some efforts to diversify their student bodies, offering financial aid to historically underrepresented groups. Nevertheless, students from legacy backgrounds and top-income families remain heavily represented in these schools.

To justify the ongoing disparities, Ivy League schools promote the meritocracy myth, which suggests that opportunities are awarded based on individual talent and effort. Sociologists critique this notion not because skills and hard work are irrelevant but because it oversimplifies the concept of deservingness and overlooks the impact of privilege.

Ivy League institutions often reinforce this myth, telling students they are there because they are the best and brightest, destined to lead and change the world. For those from privileged backgrounds, this message aligns with their experiences, validating both their own success and their families' advantages.

For students from marginalized backgrounds, however, this narrative can be alienating. Accepting that they deserve their place at an Ivy League school because of their exceptionalism also implies that others in their communities do not. Research by sociologists like Anthony Jack and Elizabeth Lee reveals that students from marginalized backgrounds may struggle with feelings of isolation or may even leave before completing their degrees.

Some, like JD Vance, reconcile with the meritocratic myth in ways that can be harmful. In his memoir, *Hillbilly Elegy*, Vance uses his success to critique his own community, arguing that personal responsibility is the key to overcoming hardship. His narrative reflects a broader tendency among some Ivy League graduates to use their success as proof of a meritocratic system, even if it means disparaging their own backgrounds and advocating against social safety nets or affirmative action.

While Ivy League schools are not solely responsible for producing individuals like Trump and Vance, their influence in shaping political and social policies based on elitist and exclusionary ideologies is significant. This calls for a critical examination of their role and suggests that we should consider leaders from more diverse educational backgrounds, such as graduates of historically Black colleges like Howard University, for future political office.

Jessica Calarco, a sociologist and professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, explores these issues in her works, including *Holding It Together: How Women Became America's Safety Net* and *Negotiating Opportunities: How the Middle Class Secures Advantages in School*.