Social Closure in American Elite Higher Education

 

Social Closure in American Elite Higher Education Author(s): David L. Swartz Source: Theory and Society, Vol. 37, No. 4 (Aug., 2008), pp. 409-419 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40211044 . http://www.jstor.org/stable/40211044 . Accessed: 11/04/2013 10:20 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

 . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of  content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

 .

Springer  is  is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Theory and Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 81.194.16.102 81.194.16.102 on Thu, 11 Apr 20 2013 13 10:20:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

 

Theor oc (2008) 37:409-419 DOI 10.1007/S11186-008-9064-2

Social closure n American litehigher ducation David L. Swartz

Published nline: 2 April 008 BusinessMedia Media B.V. 2008 © Springercience Business

AbstractElitecollegeadmissions xemplify AbstractElite xemplifyrocesses rocesses f social closure n which he trategicse of culturaldeals culturaldeals onflict,rganizationalelf-interest, elf-interest, status-grouponflict, of merit,nd merit, nd broader ocialntrends nd contingent contingentistorical istoricalvents vents nterweave nterweaveo o Jerome Karabel's institutional the United States.The States. The Chosen, shape ower ower monumentaltudy f the history f college admissions t Harvard, ale, and eliterecruitment recruitment ndaa nd Princetonrom Princeton rom 900 to 2005, offers political ociology f elite three hathas has guided hese hesethree definitionf merit hat cultural nd social history f the definitionf schools ndshapedmuch urrenthinkingbout ollege dmissions. s Max Weber culturaldeals dealsof ofan epochbear he tamp felite remindeds,thevery efinitionfcultural nd their trategicses dealsbutculturalnterests culturalnterestsnd otculturaldeals group omination:otcultural mpirical emonstration impressivempirical guide nstitutionalower. hebookprovides n impressive our ifferentefinitions efinitionsf merit s organizational that roposition:t dentifies dentifiesour ofthat of thathave have guided Harvard, ale, and Princeton ver the last gatekeepingools that hundred ears and shows how these definitions ere molded by status-group nd organizationalnterests.his nterests.his essay outlines hecentral rgumentsf conflictnd conflict Karabel'sbook; t dentifies Karabel'sbook; dentifiesey eycontributions contributions or urunderstanding or urhree understanding f thehistory, the history, thighlights nd politics f these nstitutions; culture,rganizationalnterests,nd reflectsn a fundamental the ocialclosure rameworkuiding he nalysis; nd t reflectsn

Admissionnd nd Exclusion t HiddenHistory fAdmission A review ssayonJerome on Jerome arabel, he Chosen:The Chosen:TheHidden Harvard, ale, nd Princeton. oston:Houghton ifflin, ifflin,005, 005, D. L. SwartzISI) MA 02215,USA ostonUniversity,6-100 6-100Cummingtont., t.,Boston, Boston,MA Sociology epartment,oston e-mail: [email protected]

£} Springer

This content downloaded from 81.194.16.102 81.194.16.102 on Thu, 11 Apr 20 2013 13 10:20:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions  

410

Theor oc (2008) 37:409-419

meritocraticdeals as governing rinciples or ambiguity n Karabel's thinking bout meritocraticdeals modern tratifiedocieties. tratifiedocieties. Social closure: a subordination ne process of whereby group monopolizes o another outsidersbeneath beneath t advantages by closing off pportunities ofoutsiders groupof group which t defines s inferior nd ineligible. (Murphy 1988:8) (Murphy1988:8) Widelyreviewed n the print nd broadcastmedia, ncluding heNew YorkTimes, Los Angeles Times,The Economist,Christian heLos Washington ost, The New Yorker,he Science Monitor,and the Chronicle of Higher Education, Jerome JeromeKarabel's Karabel's book, The Chosen: The Hidden History fAdmission nd Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton Houghton Mifflin, 005), is, as one reviewerputs it, a scholarly scholarlyepic, epic, the big meta-academicbook of the season. The scholarly scholarlycommunity community as been even more enthusiastic. enthusiastic.Winner Winner f numerous wards1crossing crossingdisciplinary disciplinary nd subworkshave have disciplinary oundaries,The Chosen has achieved whatfew sociological works been able to do: interweave seamlessly history,organization history,organization and institutional analysis, culture, ducation, and politics. Indeed, this monumental euvre of over 550 pages of text nd another another115 115 pages of endnotesbrings endnotesbrings riginal ontributions ontributionsoo each of these subfields n sociology. t seems only fittinghat his hiswork workbe reviewed in the pages of Theory and Society, where an early installment utlining the argument, he theoretical ramework,nd the empiricaldata of the first hird f the book alreadyappeared (Karabel 1984).2 A central concern concern of political sociology is power, the multitude multitude f ways that differentiated docieties. In recent years new power finds expression in modern differentiate attention s being given to the ways that power is expressed through cultural resources, processes, agents, and institutions o shape political environments.A growing nterest n the sociology of culture oncerns how through he manifest r latent operations of definitions, lassifications,distinctions, nd categorizations culturalhierarchies cultural hierarchiesboth both constitute nd express social hierarchies,ust as Pierre Bourdieu (1984 [1979]) argues. Karabel's book is an exemplarywork of this new cultural nd institutionalrientation institutional rientationn n political sociological work. It standswithin the C. WrightMills tradition f power elite researchthoughKarabel, much more

1These include he Awardof of the American ociologicalAssociation Distinguishedcholarly Distinguished cholarly ook Award hePacific ociologicalAssociation Association (2007), theDistinguishedontributiono Scholarship ward rom hePacific theWillard WillardWallerAward rom he ociology fEducation ection fthe f theAmerican Americanociological (2007), the Association2006), the theNational NationalJewish Jewish ook Award nAmerican n American ewish istory theMax 2006), and theMax istory2006), WeberAward Weber Awardfrom from he Organizations, nd Work ection f the American Organizations,ccupations, ccupations, ociological Association,2006). 2006). 2 In the nterestf nterestf fulldisclosure: fulldisclosure: participatedn thevery arly hasesof theresearch theresearcheading o this bookandhavediscussed havediscussedwith he uthor arious spects fhisresearch hisresearchor he hebook bookover over everal ears. reviewed hemanuscriptor hepublishernd wrote wrote ecommendation etters etters he hebook bookfor for several wards. he heauthor, author,owever, owever,as as not een hose etters ettersrrread his eviewominating rior opublication.s the review ndicates, think uite highly f this thiswork. work.My critical valuation omes in identifying contributions o sociology hatmight ot be immediatelypparentn such large olume,n fleshingut otbe

more xplicitlyhe heoreticalramework rameworkuiding hework, nd npointing mbivalence pointingp p a fundamental the uthor as about aboutmeritocratic meritocratic deals. £j Springer

This content downloaded from 81.194.16.102 81.194.16.102 on Thu, 11 Apr 20 2013 13 10:20:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions  

Theor oc (2008) 37:409-419

411

thanMills and his followers, ncludesas integralmembers thanMills members f the power elite eaders of dominant dominant ultural nstitutions.3 nstitutions.3his his remarkable tudyof the Big Three,Harvard, recruitmenthat Yale, and Princeton HYP), offers political sociology of elite recruitmenthat shows both how these three nstitutionsnd their eaders have shaped America in significantways significant ways and at the same time have been obliged to make strategic adaptations o changes in Americansociety. The Chosen is a history f college admissions at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton Harvard,Yale, 1900 to 2005. But it is much more. It is also about institutio institutional nal ower. A from1900 from made by decisionsmade central rgument f thebook is thatpower lies at the center f thedecisions nd thatadmissions that admissions policy tends to reflectpower relations administratorsnd college administrators schools.4 The book amongmajor social groups nd theorganizational nterests f the schools.4The also offers cultural nd social history f the definition f merit nd the recurrent pposed to equality in Althoughmerit s frequently frequentlypposed struggles ver thatdefinition.Although magination,ust ust as equalityof opportunitys opposed to equalityof today'spopular magination, an advance in one necessarilymeans radeoff offwhere wherean sortof zero-sum rade condition s a sortof hat verything epends on reminderhat Karabel's book is a useful usefulreminder a retreatn retreatn the other,Karabel's how one defines merit nd that thatno no definitions definitions politically politicallyneutral neutral a key keythesis thesisof of the book. Indeed the verydefinitions f cultural deals of an epoch, as Marx Weber reminded s, bear the stampof elite group domination hough hey re occasionally The Chosen provides an impressive contested.5The contested.5 empirical demonstration f that impressiveempirical thathave guided HYP meritthat efinitions f merit differentefinitions proposition; t identifies our different and social ulturaland last 100 years and that emerged through ultural admissions over the last all privilege the attributesmost abundantly definitionsall conflict. And these definitions possessed by dominant ocial groups 549). Bourdieu (Bourdieu 1984 [1979]; 1996 [1989]), Pierre erreBourdieu by the work of Pi Inspiredby Inspired Karabel brings an organizational field perspective to his analysis. The book these three institutionsmaintain dimensionsthese relational and power dimensions highlights he relationaland nd segmented stratifiednd withexternal reference chools in a stratified and with externalreference with each other otherand system of higher education. Their decisions regarding admissions need to be

3 Karabel's elite includes individuals who occupy the leading positions in major organizations n the economy, the polity, nd the culture whereas the Mills tradition ncludes military eaders in the power theirdefinition hose who preside over the nation's major cultural nstitutions elite but exclude fromtheirdefinition (560). 4 In his 1984 paper Karabel frames he early 1918-1940 period of HYP admissions with social closure primarily romWeber inspirationprimarily theory nd a theoryof institutional utonomy and change that draws inspiration (1978), and elaborated by Parkin 1974; 1979) and Murphy 1988). Two components stand out: statusgroup struggle and organizational self-interest. he Chosen expands upon and elaborates that earlier such as conditions of factorssuch framework. t takes into account a wider range of contingentfactors theoreticalframework. theoretical national crisis when the urban riots of 1968 propelled the Big Three to open their doors to minority elites or the defense of from status students-a move that did not result

group struggleamong struggleamong directly both marxism and interests. functionalism,Karabel stresses both organizational Against status group struggle yetparticularly also interweaves historical contingency nto his autonomy and organizationautonomy organization of institutional account hange. 5 In cultural and educational ideals interconnectwith systems of social esteem, Weber discussing how culturaland cultivated man was stamped by hatthe the educational ideal of the cultivatedman (Gerth and Mills 1970:243) remarks hat conditionformembership n the ruling the structuref structure f domination nd the ruling tratum nd by the social conditionfor stratum. 4y Springer

This content downloaded from 81.194.16.102 81.194.16.102 on Thu, 11 Apr 20 2013 13 10:20:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions  

412

Theor oc (2008) 37:409-419

thatthe elationsthat the Big Three entertain understood n termsof fiercely ompetitive elations with each each other and with those socially proximate schools such as Dartmouth, Williams,and Stanford, Williams,and Stanford,nd nd those socially more moredistant distant ut relevant eferences uch as Columbia, MIT, Chicago, and Perm. Indeed, The Chosen is one of the best organization ield analyses currentlyvailable. Karabel details with devastatingprecision his argument hat the changes in merit hatguided the Big Three were not admission policies and the definitions f merit nterests nd power institutionalnterests arbitrary ut rooted in concrete and evolving institutional struggles. The changes were spurred by the need of HYP to maintain their withinthe the field of highereducation and to foster he the competitivepositions competitive positions within preservationof the larger social order of which they were an integral- and meritthatwould would guide privileged- part. In the struggleover the definition f meritthat admissionspolicies, we see HYP and their eaders guided not so much by ideals but the competitive by organizational nterests s they act to maintain and enhance the positions of theirrespectiveschools. Thus, the decisions by Yale and Princeton finallyto finally to admit women in 1969 were made less with the ideal of equality of hanby their theirfear fearthat that heir ll-male character ndangered heir opportunityn mind tthan notmean mean that deals were not mportant; ability o attract the best boys. This does not in fact, they were often objects of struggle as the decision to admit women, met with vigorous alumni resistance William F. Buckley particularly t Yale, was metwith was among the leaders). Yet considerationof considerationof competingorganizational nterests carried the day as the leaders of the three schools behaved like constrained differentrom rom he heads of largecorporations,whose primary managersnot so verydifferent task s to defend heir rganization's osition n a highly ompetitive nvironment. 6 The book also says something mportant omparatively:by omparatively:by focusing on the American ase, it points pointsup up yetanother trikingnstance f American xceptionalism. with rony, he henotion notion hat the ability o throw, ick,or hit ball is a As Karabel notes noteswith n determining ho should be admitted o our greatest esearch riterionn legitimate riterion universitiesss a proposition hat universities hatwould would be considered aughable n most mostof of theworld's theworld's countries. n France's Ecole Normale Superieure,Japan'sUniversity Japan'sUniversity f Tokyo,and most of the world's other elite schools, academic excellence, not extracurricular efineswho who is to be admitted. abilities, efines Karabel turns, s the best of histo historical rical ociology does, our attention rom ixation on the present to an understanding f how today's taken-for-granted taken-for-grantedalues and fitswiththat that cholarship n the origins practices ame about. As such, The Chosen fitswith of the present genre that uncovers uncovers the processes that created the basis of

recruitmentn the United States. Today, college bound high contemporary lite recruitmentn schoolers and theirfamilies theirfamiliestoil toil away on the increasingly nxiety-ridd nxiety-ridden7 en7asks of filling ut college applications, applications,prepping preppingforand taking he SATs, collecting etters

6

mind Weber's (1970:280) famous ine Not ideas, but material differentssue ssue in mindWeber's Althoughwrittenwitha different and ideal interests, irectly govern men's conduct is suggestive of the emphasis Karabel wishes to convey. 7 In a remarkKarabel Karabel observes that It is no exaggeration o say that he current egime n elite poignantremark farmore successful in democratizing nxiety than opportunity 547). college admissions has been farmore

£} Springer

This content downloaded from 81.194.16.102 81.194.16.102 on Thu, 11 Apr 20 2013 13 10:20:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions  

Theor oc (2008) 37:409-419

413

of recommendations rom guidance counselors and teachers,performing or the personal interview, nd trying o be creative in the personal essay. All of this hathas has been foistedupon us by elite embodiesaa defining mage of individualmerit embodies individualmerit hat ntothe thehistorical rigins f that admissions.The The Karabel book offers nsight nto college admissions. hatguides access to our best colleges and universities oday. view of the merito meritorious rioushat Far frombeing a universal ttribute,merit,The Chosen shows, has undergonefour differentefinitions different efinitions ver the last hundredyears in HYP admissions. twentieth entury thetwentieth Anyone who thinks olleges and universities t the turn f the were ust like they re today, nly smaller,will be surprised.HYP did not turn own many applicants then; moreover, these schools were strikinglymeritocratic, admitting tudentsalmost largely on the basis of academic criteria, specially institutions emained knowledge of Latin and Greek. This worked as long as these institutionsemained WASP enclaves, where limited numbers of qualified candidates applied, mostly channeledby a handful f elite northeast rivate chools - such as Groton, Andover, Groton,Andover, and St. Paul's - thatprovided the kind of classical education HYP then required. These were the days the Protestant stablishment, escribed so well by E. Digby Baltzell (1964; Baltzell 1976), reigned nd HYP functioned o groom ts able (male) forpositionsof power. membersfor members meritbecame problematicforthese institutions But this academic definition f meritbecame numbersof of qualified applicants from he growing when it started ttracting arge numbers ttractingarge of mass immigration, otably Jews. This hildrenof urban, public-school-education hildren change occurred in the context of a powerful national movement to restrict the twentieth entury. aced withgrowingnumbers immigrationn the earlypartof thetwentieth of applicantswho seemed to be not the rightkind of people, all three nstitutions JewishProblem by setting uotas and altering heir efinition f merit. solved their JewishProblem he expresses whichhe President owell in which romHarvard'sPresident Karabel unearthed letter romHarvard's the WASP elite of the time, but also shared his not only he prejudices, prejudices,widely widely by The summer hotel that s ruined by summerhotel identifies roblem: practical nstitutional of bad character, ut meets tsfate,notbecause the Jews t admits re ofbad ewsmeets admitting ews have left, hey eave Gentileshave because theydrive way the Gentiles, nd then fter he Gentiles also. The problemwas fear of WASP flight; oo many East Europeans - Jews -

essentialboth to would scare away the upper-class gentlemenwhose presencewas essentialboth upper-classgentlemen Harvard's nob appeal and its fund-raisingfforts. was leading to criteriawas meritbased based on academic criteria thatthe the definition f merit Realizing that And solution was to change the definition f merit.And the wrong kind of student, he solutionwas that s whatLowell - and his counterpartst Yale and Princeton did. A meeting f New England deans in 1918 explicitly ddressed this problem: how to limit the f redefinitionf heredefinition on the elite campuses? It set in motion he Jewson growingnumbers f Jews that would take place over the next few years. A new definition f merit meritthat merit the shifted eature; he focus fromacademic personal qualities. Character personality, became ike manliness, t included central ubjective ualities highly to ethosthat ould be used to and leadership nd was in fact code for n entire ocial ethosthat keep undesirables ut. Yet when presented n universal erms, ualities of character the ideals ideals of withthe seemed indicative f only leadership leadershippotential potential nd quite in line with dmissionoffices offices t the Big withthis thisnew definition,dmission equalityof opportunity.n line with Threebegan askingforphotographs, ersonal nterviews,etters f recommendations, photographs,ersonal undesirable.A new symbolic etc. to weed out the undesirable.A boundarywas erected nd a new symbolicboundary £} Springer

This content downloaded from 81.194.16.102 81.194.16.102 on Thu, 11 Apr 20 2013 13 10:20:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions  

414

Theor oc (2008) 37:409^119

boundary maintenanceprocess put into operation.8Karabel thus shows that the was not only about a cultural deal but also excellencewas struggle ver the definition f excellence an organizational atekeeping ool. The response to the Jewish problem in the 1920s led to the emergenceof a characterized erized y high evels of discretion and opacity that system f admissionscharact permitted niversity dministratorso produce the outcomes they desired under changing circumstances. Discretion gave the gatekeepers freedom to do what they wished and opacity permitted hem to exercise their selection powers modern rn vy League without ublic scrutiny. his became a definingmoment f the mode hatwe we still have today. ronically t is and instituted college admissions system hat administratorsnd nd opacity to the this same system granting iscretion o college administrators systemgranting process thatpermits t some forty ears later o reformulate et again thedefinition hatwould hat would open the doors to racial minorities nd of merit merit o include diversity women. RobertMichels Michels (1962), coins as the iron This shift egins whatKarabel, echoingRobert law of admissions : a universitywill retain particular dmissionspolicy only so institutionalnterests. nterests. long as it produces outcomes that correspond o perceived institutional rather han principle. Admissions policies are, in other words, drivenby outcome rather institutional nalnd culturalhistory hatthe Big Indeed it is the central hesis of this institutio admissions ns Three have always determined heir merit criteriaaccording to the admissio thatwould would suit their nstitutional nstitutionalnterests.9 nterests.9 outcomesthat outcomes The shift rom nt ntellect ellect o charact character er ccurred gainsta backdropof social anxiety thatwas that was not imited o these particular lite schools. Situating he shift n itsbroader context, Karabel writes that the redefinition f merit was part of a larger Protestants o preserve theirdominance by restricting mobilization by old-stock Protestants vailable to both nd the educational and

immigration occupational opportunities shows how the Protestant lite recent mmigrantsnd their hildren. The Chosen underchallengewas obliged to set up new symbolicboundaries o regulate he flow institutions. of candidatesto candidatesto these elite institutions. formore more sophisticated cientific demandsfor By the 1960s, the challengeof growingdemands international alompetitiveness,nd of the Cold War - symbolized research, f more internation merit-as-brains. rit-as-brains.t called forrecruiting by Sputnik ushered n a third efinition f me intellectually iftedapplicants with high standardized est scores and specialized extracurricularxcellence. The book analyzes how the three chools had to deal with their own internal constituencies n response to these external pressures: the egalitarianism f the 1960s, students nd the press demandingmore diversity,he growingpower growing power of the faculty ressuring or more brains, and alumni clinging o the past and actively activelyopposing opposing manyof the changes. The alumnirevolts t Princeton and Yale there ed by William F. Buckley BuckleyJr. Jr. remind ne that hisshift owards 8 Karabel's

analysis of the efforts y the Big Three to findnew symbolic criteria or maintaining ocial closure intersectswith intersectswith the relativelyrecent nterest n the sociology of culturewith culturalboundaries culturalboundaries (Lamont 1992; Lamont and Fournier 1992). 9 Like Michels who uses the test ase the GermanDemocratic Democratic Partywhere one would least expect study f theGerman in terms of the political ideology to find hierarchy n party organization,Karabel shows the irony of finding hat though at the very citadel of intellectual deals and institutional elf images of serving the theirr deals of merit o serve first nd foremost heir rganizational elf nterests. public interest, YP hone thei £} Springer

This content downloaded from 81.194.16.102 81.194.16.102 on Thu, 11 Apr 20 2013 13 10:20:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions  

Theor oc (2008) 37:409-419

415

notaa smooth ransition ut highly ontested y alumniwho favored meritocracy as not preferentialreatment or alumni sons. The Chosen is not a historyof just elite domination ut also one of re resistance sistance y opposing and subordinate roups.The book shows how the university residents nd admissions officers djudicated,prodded, negotiated,and compromised with these various constituencies nd drew on a esourcesto to accomplish their ask. variety f cultural esources A fourth efinition f merit merges n responseto the turmoil f tthe he 1960s and includes the values of diversity nd inclusion. This permitted ecruitmentf minorities nd coeducation. Here race-based aff affirmative irmative ction came into being, motivated ess by the moral claims of the civil rightsmovement han by desire to preservethe social order n response to the massive race riots of 1965-1968. But s well. as and racial/ethnic id not class gender points out, the iversity Indeed, lower Karabel no more diversity open today to the Big Three arebring socioeconomic reaches of society, than they were during the 1950s. In the concludingpart,Karabel suggests the possibility and advocates for- a possible fifthdefinition fifth definition hat would redefine merit to incorporatethe socioeconomically hatwould would include class disadvantaged, reating n expanded definition f diversity hat diversity s well as gender, acial, and ethnicdiversity. to hathave have governed dmissions dmissionsto This history f the manydefinitions f merit hat the last HYP since 1900 is also interwovenwith the larger history f America over thelast largerhistory 100 years, notablyhow America changed from ne dominatedby a small group of years,notably

men of Anglo-Saxon originsto one that ittleby little nlarged ts whitemen privilegedwhite leadership o includeJews,racial minorities,nd women but veryfew from he poor or working lass. Karabel uses painstaking rchivalresearch rchival researchtoo their docume document nthow, how,over over theyears, theyears,HYP HYP nstitutional and redefinedmerit redefinedmerit have defined definedand riorities. hifting ccording and memorandaand nternalmemoranda He gives a patient nalysis of annual admissions reports, nternal statistical tudies, administrative orrespondence, dmissions, facultyand trustee committeeminutes, iography,memoirs, memoirs, nd otherpreviously privatedocuments o previouslyprivate theshiftsn shifts n admissionspolicies. Karabel treats his ecordof ofthe provide olid empirical ecord documentaa central claim: admissions practices are rich and varied material to document hat end to reflect rtifactshat endto organizational atekeeping ools and their eports ultural rtifacts power relations mong major social groups and struggles ver how organizations he text nvironments.he define nd pursuetheir nterests ithin hanging ompetitive nvironments. forhow how they and vivid anecdotes,but always with n eye for detailsand offersmany tellingdetails manytelling institutional ield n which theyare generated express the dynamicsof the institutionalield Theory informs his enormous empirical work without being heavy handed. Karabel interweaves tatus-group onflict, elf-interest, nd broader Chosen other.The withoutrganizational nd contingent ventswithout vents social trends educingone to the other.The withoutthe f Bourdieu's concept of field withoutthe demonstrationf provides an exemplarydemonstration that frequently ccompanies the use of his ideas. Here fetishismthat conceptual fetishism language does not overpower the data. Indeed, it is throughnumerous conceptuallanguage conceptual thatKarabel Karabel is able to theorizethroughhis rich anecdotesthat and vivid anecdotes tellingdetails and narrative.Echoing the classical view of Weber and Bourdieu's (Bourdieu and thatmerit merit earsthe ears the mprint 1990 [1970]) cultural rbitrary, arabel arguesthat Passeron1990 Passeron definition f merit s neutral, or interestsf f dominant roups.No definitionf of the deals and andinterests particular efinition lways advantages some groups while disadvantaging thers. £} Springer

This content downloaded from 81.194.16.102 81.194.16.102 on Thu, 11 Apr 20 2013 13 10:20:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions  

416

Theor oc (2008) 37:409^119

Moreover, cultural ideals are frequently frequentlygenerated generated over contested terrainsfor recognition nd legitimacy.The great virtueof this book is that t documents n considerabledetail considerable detail ust how this thisoccurs. occurs. War Two, though WorldWar nrollmentnd nd revenues,Yale DuringWorld thoughfacing facingplummeting plummetingnrollment continuedto continued to turndown turndown qualified Jewishapplicants.Ever attentive o the multiple causal factors hat play in organizational ife, Karabel writes writes in the language of tseconomic sociology,Yale judged its ymbolic apitalto be even moreprecious han tseconomic capital. Yale would not sacrifice reputationfor short-term ain. Echoing the contemporaryheorizing contemporary heorizing f Bourdieu,Karabel pointsout that he history f college admissions nd the thedefinition definition fmerit lso points o a broader hange n the theAmerican American stratificationtructure: stratification tructure: shift fromeconomic as a means of class away ia cultural apital; capital as such, the thebattle battleover over the reproductiono indirect ransmission definition f merit n college admissions admissionshas has largely een a battle battlewithin within heelite,for the working lass has largelybeen excluded while the economically economicallyprivileged privileged old class of businessmenhas businessmenhas competed for forslots withthe slots with the culturally rivileged new class of knowledge-based knowledge-basedprofessionals. professionals. t is a story f the rise of cultural apital. For all of thetransitions the transitionsn n the definition f meritKarabel meritKarabel offers honed

finely that analysis pointsup points up the agency of the individualuniversity residents nd their admissionsdirectors, he negotiated nvironment f competing nterest roups,and theconstraints the constraints f broader ocietyforces. t is a cultural nd political politicalhistory history f elite higher ducationthat ntegrates gency and structure,nd theory, ata, and method. One findsno sense of arbitrary isciplinary istinctionswithin his work. History and sociology, for example, are seamlessly interwoven, voiding what Bourdieu calls the disastrous separationbetween separation between these two academic disciplines.KarabePs KarabePs work can be seen as an JuliaAdams Adams et al.disciplines. expressionof what Julia (Adams et al. 2005) identifys therecent hirdwave of historical ociology,whichgives new emphasis o the agency of actors.Karabel actors. Karabel shows how the HYP presidents nd their dmissions directors evised, evised,modified, modified, nd adaptedtheir dmission ystems o promote quality of opportunitys a safeguard gainstmoreradicaldemands radicaldemandsfor qualityof condition. We see inhis in his analysismulti-dimensionalmagesof ofthese thesekey ndividualswho drawon variouscultural various cultural esources o formulateheir formulateheirnterests nterestsnd nd desires hat epresentreative ircumstancesnd nd in doingso reorientnd reorientnd defend he nterests adaptations o changing ircumstances of their ositions nd institutions. institutions.tructure tructurend agency ntersecto that thatwe we see both theeffects the effects f structure structuren n agencyand thecreative the creative nnovation f agencyon structures. And culture s constitutive constitutivef f institutionalower as well as an expression f it. The Chosen offersmemorable offersmemorablebiographicalsketchesof pivotal figures, uch as Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Princeton's President Woodrow Wilson, Harvard's presidentsCharles W. Eliot, A. Lawrence Lowell, and James BryantConant, and Yale's Kingman Brewster nd his dean of admissions,R. Inslee Clark Jr.Karabel Jr.Karabel moves deftlybetween biographical glimpses of these important ctors and the institutional ontexts they stepped into and attempted o mold. He brings solid archival data and sociological theory nto a lively narrative; n doing so he has createda text hathas hathas both iterary This capacityto iteraryppeal ppeal and sociological insight.This attract broader ppeal makes thisoutstanding ook quite distinctiven the thefield fieldof of political sociology. It is also public sociology in that it informsdirectlythe contemporarydebate over race-based affirmative ction. By challenging the universalnotion of merit,Karabel's book shows once again that thatthe the debate over

£} Springer

This content downloaded from 81.194.16.102 81.194.16.102 on Thu, 11 Apr 20 2013 13 10:20:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions  

Theor oc (2008) 37:409-419

417

the natureof natureof equality of opportunitynd how it should be expanded is not ust a matter f principle; t is also a matter f politics and institutionalnterests. institutionalnterests. The Chosen can also be read as Karabel's critical reflections n meritocratic ideals: to what extentdo, can, and should they govern the systemof rewards n modern ociety.On this,Karabel is ambivalent.His ambivalent.His work shows convincingly hat reflect hanuniversal bothreflect our definitions definitions f merit re historical ather han universal n thattheyboth and constitute social elite domination and struggle. Even when intellectual achievement ecomes tthe he ideal standard, he actual practicesof these elite schools fall farshort far shortof of the ideal proclaimedas thisbook amply demonstrates. he quasimeritocratic egime currentlyn currently n place is not a meritocracy 548) because of nd because be cause the very constituencies or certain institutional references powerful most abundantly ossessed by definition f merit tself rivileges hose attributesmost

dominant ocial groups 549). the world's leading consideredthe At least until the late 1980s Harvard - widely considered researchuniversity had a 10% quota on intellectuals those admitted trictly n academic grounds) and Yale was similar. For this reason Karabel points out following he thinking f Max Weber- that n ideal of a meritocracy a system n rich nd poor alike enjoy and in which whichrich merit'and whichpowerplays no role in definingmerit' opportunitiess o succeed - is inherently nattainable 550). genuinely qual opportunitie conclude that he deal of a meritocracy Karabel abel to concludethat hisdoes does not ead Kar Nonetheless, his re meritocraticre should be discarded or that attempts o render he systemmore meritocratic considers the imperfectmeritocraticystemwe have doomed to failure 550). He considersthe today to be a vast improvement ver the older systembased system based on highly highlyvisible visible have admissionshave gained in gender, thnic, nd heritage nd privilege.Elite college admissions not have us return o the era of the Karabel applauds. He would nothave hatKarabel racial diversity hat admittedmost of its students n the basis of Harvardadmitted earlytwentieth enturywhen Harvard forfurtherxpansionof academic merit knowledge of the classics). Indeed, he calls forfurther dvance the current furtherdvance thatcould further measuresthat fourmeasures meritdiversity.He proposes four ideal: eliminatepreferences or legacies, end egime toward its ideal: quasi-meritocraticegime quasi-meritocratic early admissions and early action, reduce preferences or recruited thletes,and hatwould would include class diversity. embraceaa new definition f merit hat embrace he systemof ransformhe fourpolicy changes would hardly ransform hesefour While adopting hese meritocraticdeals to themeritocraticdeals closerto elite college admissions, heywould push them bit closer of these schools recordof historicalrecord book ok unearths historical these schools proclaim. Yet the bo nterests bove those of students nd the broader institutionalnterests heirown own institutional pursuing heir society.School society. School administrators administratorsarely arely ursuepolicies ursue policies for forvalues values or ideals without he Even such modest measures are carriers.Even pressureor support of powerfulsocial carriers. xternal, r nternal,xternal, unlikely o be implemented nless powerful ressure whether nternal, 10 both - is applied (555). Here Karabel seems strikingly essimistic. While he reformmeasures, t s noteworthyhat n the end Karabel does modestreform suggests ome modest not lay out a politics for nstitutionalhange. Perhaps he does not see an obvious Shortof of a period hatwould would do that.Perhapsthere s none. Short emerging olitical force hat hatmotivated motivated lite school urbanriots hat of social crisissimilar crisis similar n intensityo the 1968 urbanriots theirusual usual earful f a crumbling ocial order to reach out beyond their administratorsearful administrators 10A nalysis y David Karen 1991) of the politics f higher ducation pointmade n an insightfulnalysis admissions. £1 Springer

This content downloaded from 81.194.16.102 81.194.16.102 on Thu, 11 Apr 20 2013 13 10:20:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions  

418

Theor oc (2008) 37:409^*19

constituenciesto the disenfranchised, here seems little chance for significant withoutcost cost (555) changes in prevailingpatterns. Real change does not come without Karabel notes, and for the possibilityof increasingthe class diversity f the Big theabsence absence of a potentially owerful dvocacy force the Three,Karabel observes the Americanworking lass. Indeed, without powerful olitical force n sight,Karabel is obliged to resort o moral ad admonition. monition.He He asks:

is it too much to ask the leaders of of our most prestigious nstitutionsf higher education institutionshat institutionshat onstantly roclaimtheir ommitmento ommitmento the deals of meritocracy meritocracynd nd inclusion that hey xhibit he same integrity integritynd nd firmness of character heydemand demandof of their pplications? 555) Good question. But absent a political force in sight,and as Karabel's history f will follow leaderswill change n admissionsshows, t muchmore ikely hat lite school leaders theirmaterial their material nd ideal interests hantheir deals. Finally, even if we were able to approach much more closely the ideal of Karabel sees rewarding ndividualson the basis of their ntellectual chievements,Karabel limitsto limits to even a successful meritocratic ystem. If the prospects for significant meritocraticdeals are alreadywith withus us change seem elusive,the deological effects f meritocraticdeals and it is thisdarker ide of the meritocracy hat hatKarabel Karabel also stresses.Like stresses.Like Michael Young in his classic The Rise of the Meritocracy 1961[1958]), Karabel believes selecting and rewarding ndividuals on the basis of talent and performance s a reasonable principle but seriously flawed as a governing governingsocietal societal ideal. The distinctions worth onsidering. quality of opportunityeed not replacethe deal of distinctions itseems seems to have done in themindsand practices f so many equalityof condition s it Americans. Both Young and Karabel would retain retainthe the equality of conditionas a guidingprinciple guiding principle s his call forclass diversity n college admissions suggests.But the ideology of individual meritalso has its darkerside as Young prophetically thatthe the suggested fifty ears ago. Inspiredby the work of Young, Karabel argues that meritocracyultimately meritocracy ultimatelydeflects attentionfrom the real issues of poverty and inequalityof conditiononto a chimericalquest forunlimited ocial mobility 5). Karabel believes that Young's prophetic fear is in full realization before us: Americansbelieve Americans believe there s more social mobility han hanthere there ctually s, Americans re strikingly olerant f economic inequality,Americans are much more inclined to invest n higher ducationthan n the social safetywelfare welfarenet netfor for hose who fail n the competitive competitiverace, race, and Americans believe that the way to address economic more rethecoveted the coveted slots at inequality s to increaseeducationalopportunity. ore and mo ourmost our mostselectiveschools go to the nheritors nheritorsf f cultural nd social capital as well as economic capital. Yet in the minds of many Americans,success and failurego to individuals lone: winners winners an self-congratulatend losers have only themselves o blame. In Young's words,the equalityof opportunityn fact factmeans means the equalityof opportunityo be unequal. It is this darkside of themeritocracy hat othKarabel and Young would have us consider. It encourages elite self-righteousnessnd chances for forcritical critical nsight hatpermits he disadvantagedto see that dampens the chances their personal troubles may well be public issues (Mills 1959).11 1 Thecorrosiveffects corrosiveffectsf fmeritocratic winnersnd nd osers s an early heme hemen nKarabel's deology n bothwinners work. (1972) £} Springer

This content downloaded from 81.194.16.102 81.194.16.102 on Thu, 11 Apr 20 2013 13 10:20:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions  

Theor oc (2008) 37:409^19

References

419