Social Closure in American Elite Higher Education

7/30/2019 Social Closure in American Elite Higher Education

1/12

Social Closure in American Elite Higher EducationAuthor(s): David L. SwartzSource: Theory and Society, Vol. 37, No. 4 (Aug., 2008), pp. 409-419Published by: SpringerStable URL: 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].

.

Springeris 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 on Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:20:53 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springerhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40211044?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40211044?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer


2/12

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

Social closure nAmerican litehigher ducationDavid L. Swartz

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

AbstractElitecollegeadmissionsxemplifyrocesses f social closure nwhichstatus-grouponflict,rganizationalelf-interest,he trategicse of culturaldealsofmerit,nd broader ocial trends ndcontingentistoricalvents nterweaveoshape institutionalower n the United States.The Chosen,JeromeKarabel'smonumentaltudy f thehistoryf college admissions t Harvard, ale, andPrincetonrom 900 to2005,offers political ociology feliterecruitmentndacultural nd social historyf the definitionf merit hathas guided hesethreeschools ndshapedmuch urrenthinkingbout ollege dmissions. sMax Weberremindeds,thevery efinitionfculturaldeals f anepochbear he tamp f elitegroup omination: otculturaldeals but culturalnterestsnd their trategicsesguide nstitutionalower. he bookprovidesn impressivempiricalemonstrationofthat roposition:t dentifiesour ifferentefinitionsf merit s organizationalgatekeepingools thathave guidedHarvard, ale, and Princetonver the lasthundred earsand shows how these definitions eremoldedby status-groupconflictndorganizationalnterests.hisessayoutlines he centralrgumentsfKarabel'sbook; t dentifieseycontributionsor urunderstandingf thehistory,culture,rganizationalnterests,ndpolitics f these hreenstitutions;thighlightsthe ocial closure rameworkuidinghe nalysis; nd t reflectsn a fundamental

A review ssayonJerome arabel, he Chosen:TheHiddenHistory fAdmissionnd ExclusiontHarvard, ale, nd Princeton. oston:Houghton ifflin,005,D. L. SwartzISI)Sociology epartment,ostonUniversity,6-100Cummingtont.,Boston,MA 02215,USAe-mail: [email protected]

} Springer

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/12

410 Theor oc (2008) 37:409-419ambiguitynKarabel's thinkingbout meritocraticdeals as governing rinciples ormodern tratifiedocieties.

Social closure: "a process of subordinationwhereby ne group monopolizesadvantages by closing off pportunitiesoanothergroupofoutsidersbeneath twhich tdefines s inferiornd ineligible. (Murphy1988:8)Widelyreviewed ntheprint nd broadcastmedia, ncluding he New YorkTimes,Washingtonost, The New Yorker,heLos AngelesTimes,TheEconomist,ChristianScience Monitor,and the Chronicleof Higher Education, JeromeKarabel's book,TheChosen: The HiddenHistory fAdmission nd Exclusion atHarvard, Yale,andPrinceton HoughtonMifflin, 005), is, as one reviewerputsit,a "scholarlyepic,"the "big meta-academic book of the season." The scholarlycommunity as beeneven more enthusiastic.Winner f numerous wards1crossingdisciplinarynd sub-disciplinary oundaries,The Chosen has achieved what fewsociologicalworkshavebeen able to do: interweave seamlessly history,organizationand institutionalanalysis,culture, ducation,and politics. Indeed, this monumental euvre of over550 pages of text nd another115 pages of endnotesbrings riginal ontributionsoeach of these subfields n sociology. t seemsonly fittinghat hiswork be reviewedin the pages of Theory and Society,where an early installment utliningtheargument,he theoretical ramework,nd theempiricaldata of the first hird f thebook already appeared (Karabel 1984).2A central concern of political sociology is power, the multitude f ways thatpower finds expression in modern differentiatedocieties. In recentyears newattention s being given to the ways that power is expressed throughculturalresources,processes, agents, and institutions o shape political environments.Agrowing nterestn the sociology of culture oncerns how through hemanifest rlatent operations of definitions, lassifications, distinctions, nd categorizationsculturalhierarchiesboth constitute nd express social hierarchies,ust as PierreBourdieu (1984 [1979]) argues.Karabel's book is an exemplarywork of this newcultural nd institutionalrientationn political sociological work. It stands withinthe C. WrightMills tradition f power elite researchthoughKarabel, much more

1These include heDistinguishedcholarly ook Awardof the American ociologicalAssociation(2007),theDistinguishedontributiono Scholarshipward rom hePacific ociologicalAssociation(2007),theWillardWallerAward rom he ociology f Educationection ftheAmericanociologicalAssociation2006), theNationalJewish ook Award nAmerican ewish istory2006),and theMaxWeberAwardfrom heOrganizations,ccupations,nd Work ection f the AmericanociologicalAssociation,2006).2 In the nterestf fulldisclosure: participatednthevery arly hasesof theresearcheading o thisbook and havediscussedwith he uthor arious spects f hisresearch or hebookover everal ears.reviewed hemanuscriptor hepublishernd wrote ecommendationetters ominatinghebookforseveral wards. heauthor,owever,as not een hose ettersr read his eview rioropublication.sthe review ndicates, think uite highly f thiswork.My critical valuation omes in identifyingcontributionsosociologyhatmight otbe immediatelypparentnsuch large olume,nfleshingutmore xplicitlyhe heoreticalrameworkuidinghework,nd npointingpa fundamentalmbivalencethe uthor as aboutmeritocraticdeals.j Springer



4/12

Theor oc (2008) 37:409-419 41 1thanMills andhis followers,ncludes as integralmembers f thepowerelite eadersof dominant ultural nstitutions.3his remarkable tudyof theBig Three, Harvard,Yale, and Princeton HYP), offers political sociology of elite recruitmenthatshows both how these three nstitutions nd their eaders have shaped America insignificantways and at the same time have been obliged to make strategicadaptations o changes in Americansociety.The Chosen is a history f college admissionsat Harvard,Yale, and Princetonfrom1900 to 2005. But it is much more. It is also about institutional ower. Acentral rgumentf the book is thatpowerlies at the center f the decisionsmadebycollege administratorsnd thatadmissionspolicy tends to reflectpower relationsamong majorsocial groups nd theorganizationalnterests f the schools.4The bookalso offers cultural nd social history f the definition f merit nd the recurrentstruggles ver that definition.Althoughmerit s frequentlypposed to equalityintoday's popular magination,ust as equalityofopportunitys opposed to equalityofcondition s a sortof zero-sum radeoffwherean advance in one necessarilymeansa retreatn theother,Karabel's book is a usefulreminderhat verythingependsonhow one defines merit" nd thatno definitions politicallyneutral a keythesisofthe book. Indeed theverydefinitions f cultural deals of an epoch, as Marx Weberreminded s, bear thestampof elitegroupdomination hough hey re occasionallycontested.5The Chosen provides an impressiveempiricaldemonstration f thatproposition; t identifies our differentefinitions f meritthat have guided HYPadmissions over the last 100 years and thatemergedthrough ulturaland socialconflict. And these definitionsall privilege the "attributes most abundantlypossessed by dominant ocial groups" 549).Inspiredby the work of PierreBourdieu (Bourdieu 1984 [1979]; 1996 [1989]),Karabel brings an organizational field perspective to his analysis. The bookhighlights he relationaland power dimensionsthese three institutionsmaintainwith each otherand withexternalreference chools in a stratifiednd segmentedsystemof higher education. Their decisions regardingadmissions need to be

3 Karabel's elite includes "individuals who occupy the leading positions in major organizations n theeconomy,the polity, nd the culture" whereas the Mills tradition ncludes military eaders in the powerelite but "exclude from theirdefinition hose who preside over the nation's major cultural nstitutions"(560).4 In his 1984 paper Karabel frames he early 1918-1940 period of HYP admissions with social closuretheory nd a theoryof institutionalutonomyand change that draws inspirationprimarily rom Weber(1978), and elaboratedby Parkin 1974; 1979) and Murphy 1988). Two componentsstand out: status-group struggleand organizational self-interest. he Chosen expands upon and elaborates that earliertheoreticalframework. t takes into account a wider range of contingentfactorssuch as conditions ofnational crisis when the urban riots of 1968 propelled the Big Three to open their doors to minoritystudents-amove that did not resultdirectlyfrom statusgroup struggleamong elites or the defense oforganizational interests.Against both marxism and particularlyfunctionalism,Karabel stresses bothorganizationautonomy and status group struggle yet also interweaves historicalcontingency nto hisaccount of institutionalhange.5 In discussing how culturaland educational ideals interconnectwith systemsof social esteem,Weber(Gerthand Mills 1970:243) remarks hatthe educational ideal of the "cultivatedman" was "stampedbythe structuref domination nd theruling tratum nd bythe social conditionformembershipn therulingstratum."

4y Springer



5/12

412 Theor oc (2008) 37:409-419understood n terms of fiercely ompetitive elationsthattheBig Three entertainwith each other and with those socially proximateschools such as Dartmouth,Williams,and Stanford,nd thosesociallymoredistant ut relevant eferences uchas Columbia, MIT, Chicago, and Perm. Indeed, The Chosen is one of the bestorganization ieldanalysescurrentlyvailable.Karabel details with devastating precision his argument hat the changes inadmissionpolicies and thedefinitions f merit hatguidedtheBig Three were notarbitrary ut rooted in concrete and evolving institutionalnterests nd powerstruggles.The changes were spurred by the need of HYP to maintain theircompetitivepositionswithinthe field of highereducation and to foster he "thepreservationof the larger social order of which they were an integral- andprivileged- part." In the struggleover the definition f meritthatwould guideadmissionspolicies,we see HYP and their eadersguidednot so muchby ideals butby organizational nterests s they act to maintain and enhance the competitivepositionsof theirrespectiveschools. Thus, the decisions by Yale and Princetonfinallyto admit women in 1969 were made less with the ideal of equality ofopportunityn mind thanby theirfearthat heir ll-male character ndangered heirability o attract the bestboys." This does notmeanthat deals werenot mportant;in fact, they were often objects of struggleas the decision to admit women,particularlyt Yale, was metwithvigorousalumni resistance WilliamF. Buckleywas among the leaders). Yet considerationof competing organizational nterestscarried the day as the leaders of the three schools behaved like "constrainedmanagersnot so verydifferentrom he heads of large corporations,whose primarytask s to defend heir rganization's osition n a highly ompetitive nvironment."6The book also says something mportant omparatively:by focusingon theAmerican ase, itpointsup yetanother trikingnstance f American xceptionalism.As Karabel noteswith rony,henotion hat theability othrow, ick,or hit ball is alegitimate riterionn determining ho should be admitted o ourgreatest esearchuniversitiess a propositionhatwould be considered aughable nmostof theworld'scountries."n France's Ecole NormaleSuperieure,Japan'sUniversityf Tokyo,andmost of the world's other elite schools, academic excellence,not extracurricularabilities, efineswho is to be admitted.Karabel turns, s the best of historical ociologydoes, our attention rom ixationon the presentto an understanding f how today's taken-for-grantedalues andpractices ame about. As such,The Chosen fitswiththat cholarshipn the"originsof the present" genre that uncovers the processes that created the basis ofcontemporarylite recruitmentn the United States. Today, college bound highschoolers and theirfamiliestoil away on the increasingly nxiety-ridden7asks offilling ut college applications,preppingfor and taking heSATs, collecting etters

6 Althoughwrittenwith a differentssue in mindWeber's (1970:280) famous ine "Not ideas, but materialand ideal interests, irectly govern men's conduct" is suggestive of the emphasis Karabel wishes toconvey.7 In a poignantremarkKarabel observes that It is no exaggeration o say that hecurrent egime n elitecollege admissions has been farmore successful in democratizing nxietythanopportunity"547).} Springer



6/12

Theor oc (2008) 37:409-419 413of recommendations romguidance counselors and teachers,performing orthepersonal interview, nd trying o be creative in the personal essay. All of thisembodiesa defining mageof individualmerit hathas been foisteduponus byelitecollege admissions.The Karabel book offersnsightntothe historical rigins fthatview of the meritorioushatguidesaccess to our bestcolleges and universitiesoday.Far frombeinga universal ttribute,merit,The Chosen shows, has undergonefourdifferentefinitions ver the last hundredyearsin HYP admissions.Anyonewho thinks olleges and universities t the turn f thetwentiethenturywere ust likethey retoday, nlysmaller,will be surprised.HYP didnot turn ownmany applicants then; moreover, these schools were strikinglymeritocratic,admitting tudents almost largely on the basis of academic criteria, speciallyknowledgeof Latin and Greek. This worked as long as these institutionsemainedWASP enclaves, where limited numbers of qualified candidates applied, mostlychanneledbya handful f elite northeast rivate chools - such as Groton,Andover,and St. Paul's - thatprovidedthe kind of classical educationHYP thenrequired.These were the days the Protestant stablishment, escribed so well by E. DigbyBaltzell (1964; Baltzell 1976), reigned ndHYP functionedogroom ts able (male)membersforpositionsofpower.But this academic definition f meritbecame problematicfor these institutionswhen it started ttractingarge numbersof qualified applicantsfrom he growingurban,public-school-educationhildrenof mass immigration, otablyJews.Thischange occurred in the context of a powerful national movement to restrictimmigrationn theearly partof thetwentiethentury. aced withgrowingnumbersof applicantswho seemedto be not "therightkind ofpeople," all three nstitutionssolvedtheir JewishProblem"bysetting uotas and alteringheir efinitionfmerit.Karabelunearthed letter romHarvard'sPresident owell inwhichhe expressesnot only his prejudices,widely sharedby the WASP elite of the time,but alsoidentifies hepractical nstitutionalroblem:"The summerhotelthat s ruinedbyadmitting ewsmeets tsfate,not because the Jews t admits re ofbad character,utbecause theydrive way theGentiles, nd then fter he Gentileshave left, hey eavealso." The problemwas fear of WASP flight; oo manyEast Europeans- Jews-would scare away theupper-classgentlemenwhose presencewas essentialbothtoHarvard's nob appeal and itsfund-raisingfforts.Realizing thatthe definition f meritbased on academic criteriawas leading tothewrongkind of student, he solutionwas to change the definition f merit.Andthat s what Lowell - and his counterpartst Yale and Princeton did. A meeting fNew England deans in 1918 explicitly ddressed thisproblem: how to limit thegrowingnumbers f Jewson the elitecampuses? It set in motion heredefinitionfmeritthat would take place over the next few years. A new definition f meritshifted he focus from academic to "personal qualities." "Character"became thecentral eature;t includedhighly ubjective ualities ike"manliness," personality,"and"leadership" ndwas infact code for n entire ocial ethosthat ouldbe used tokeep undesirables ut. Yet whenpresented n universal erms, ualitiesof characterseemed indicative f only leadershippotential nd quite in line withthe ideals ofequalityofopportunity.n linewiththis new definition,dmissionoffices t theBigThreebeganaskingforphotographs,ersonal nterviews,etters frecommendations,etc. to weed out the undesirable.A new symbolicboundarywas erected nd a new} Springer



7/12

414 Theor oc (2008) 37:409^119boundarymaintenanceprocess put into operation.8Karabel thus shows that thestruggle ver the definition f excellencewas notonlyabout a cultural deal but alsoan organizational atekeeping ool.The responseto the "Jewishproblem" in the 1920s led to the emergenceof asystem f admissions characterized y high evels of"discretion and "opacity"thatpermitted niversity dministrators o produce the outcomes they desired underchangingcircumstances. Discretion" gave the gatekeepersfreedom to do whatthey wished" and "opacity" permitted hem to exercise their selection powerswithout ublic scrutiny. his became a definingmoment f the modern vy Leagueand instituted college admissionssystem hatwe still have today. ronically t isthis same systemgranting iscretion o college administratorsnd opacityto theprocessthatpermits t some forty ears later o reformulateet again the definitionof merit o include "diversity" hatwould open the doors to racial minorities ndwomen.This shift eginswhatKarabel,echoingRobertMichels (1962), coins as the "ironlaw of admissions":"a universitywill retain particular dmissionspolicyonlysolong as it produces outcomes thatcorrespond o perceivedinstitutionalnterests."Admissionspolicies are, in otherwords, drivenby outcome rather hanprinciple.Indeed it is the central hesis of this institutional nd culturalhistory hat theBigThree have always determined heirmerit criteriaaccording to the admissionsoutcomesthatwould suit their nstitutionalnterests.9The shift rom ntellect o character ccurred gainsta backdropof social anxietythatwas not imited o theseparticular lite schools. Situating he shiftn its broadercontext, Karabel writes that "the redefinition f merit was part of a largermobilizationby old-stock Protestants o preserve their dominance by restrictingboth immigrationnd the educational and occupational opportunitiesvailable torecent mmigrantsnd their hildren."The Chosen shows how the Protestant liteunderchallengewas obligedto setup new symbolicboundaries oregulate he flowof candidatesto these elite institutions.

By the1960s,thechallengeofgrowingdemandsformoresophisticatedcientificresearch, f more internationalompetitiveness,nd of the Cold War- symbolizedby Sputnik ushered n a third efinition f merit-as-brains.t called forrecruitingintellectually ifted applicantswithhigh standardized est scores and specializedextracurricularxcellence. The book analyzeshow the three chools had to deal withtheir own internal constituencies n response to these external pressures: theegalitarianism f the 1960s, students nd thepress demandingmorediversity,hegrowingpowerof thefaculty ressuring or "morebrains,"and alumniclinging othepastand activelyopposing manyof thechanges.The alumni revolts tPrincetonand Yale - there ed byWilliam F. BuckleyJr. remind ne that his shift owards8 Karabel's analysis of the efforts y theBig Three to find new symboliccriteria ormaintaining ocialclosure intersectswiththe relativelyrecent nterestn the sociology of culture with culturalboundaries(Lamont 1992; Lamont and Fournier1992).9 Like Michels who uses the test ase study f theGermanDemocraticPartywhere one would leastexpectin terms of the political ideology to findhierarchy n party organization,Karabel shows the ironyoffinding hatthoughat the verycitadel of intellectual deals and institutional elf images of servingthepublic interest, YP hone their deals of merit o serve first nd foremost heir rganizational elf nterests.} Springer



8/12

Theor oc (2008) 37:409-419 415meritocracy as nota smooth ransition uthighly ontested yalumni who favoredpreferentialreatment oralumni sons. The Chosen is not a historyof just elitedomination ut also one of resistance y opposingand subordinate roups.The bookshows how theuniversity residents nd admissions officers djudicated, prodded,negotiated,and compromisedwith these various constituencies nd drew on avariety f cultural esourcesto accomplishtheir ask.A fourth efinition f merit merges n responseto the turmoil f the 1960s andincludes the values of "diversity" nd "inclusion." This permitted ecruitment fminorities nd coeducation. Here race-based affirmative ction came into being,motivated ess by the moral claims of the civil rightsmovement hanby desire topreservethe social order n responseto the massive race riots of 1965-1968. Butgenderand racial/ethnic iversity id not bringclass diversity s well. Indeed, asKarabel points out, the Big Three are no more open today to the lowersocioeconomic reaches of society, than they were during the 1950s. In theconcluding part,Karabel suggeststhepossibility and advocates for- a possiblefifthdefinition hat would redefine merit to incorporatethe socioeconomicallydisadvantaged, reating n expandeddefinition fdiversityhatwould include classdiversitys well as gender, acial,and ethnicdiversity.This history f themanydefinitions f "merit" hathave governed dmissionstoHYP since 1900 is also interwovenwith thelargerhistory f America over thelast100 years,notablyhow Americachangedfrom ne dominatedby a small groupofprivilegedwhitemenofAnglo-Saxon originsto one that ittleby little nlarged tsleadership o includeJews,racialminorities,ndwomen butveryfew from hepoororworking lass.Karabel uses painstaking rchivalresearch o documenthow,over theyears,HYPhave definedand redefinedmerit ccordingto their hiftingnstitutionalriorities.He gives a patient nalysis of annual admissionsreports,nternalmemorandaandstatistical tudies, administrativeorrespondence, dmissions, facultyand trusteecommitteeminutes, iography,memoirs, nd otherpreviouslyprivatedocuments oprovide olid empirical ecordofthe shiftsn admissionspolicies. Karabel treats hisrich and varied material to documenta central claim: admissions practices areorganizational atekeeping ools and their eports ultural rtifactshat endto reflectpower relations mong major social groups and struggles ver how organizationsdefine ndpursuetheir nterests ithin hanging ompetitive nvironments. he textoffersmanytellingdetailsand vividanecdotes,butalwayswith n eye forhow theyexpressthedynamicsof the institutionalield n whichtheyare generatedTheory informs his enormous empiricalwork withoutbeing heavy handed.Karabel interweaves tatus-grouponflict, rganizational elf-interest,nd broadersocial trends nd contingentventswithout educingone to the other.The Chosenprovides an exemplarydemonstrationf Bourdieu's concept of field withouttheconceptual fetishismthat frequently ccompanies the use of his ideas. Hereconceptuallanguage does not overpowerthe data. Indeed, it is throughnumeroustellingdetails and vivid anecdotesthatKarabel is able to theorizethroughhis richnarrative.Echoing the classical view of Weber and Bourdieu's (Bourdieu andPasseron1990 [1970]) "cultural rbitrary,"arabelarguesthatmerit earsthe mprintof the deals andinterestsf dominant roups.No definitionf"merit" s neutral, orparticular efinition lways advantagessome groupswhile disadvantaging thers.} Springer



9/12

416 Theor oc (2008) 37:409^119Moreover, cultural ideals are frequentlygenerated over contested terrains forrecognition nd legitimacy.The greatvirtue of thisbook is that t documents nconsiderabledetail ust how thisoccurs.DuringWorldWarTwo, thoughfacingplummetingnrollmentndrevenues,Yalecontinuedto turndown qualifiedJewishapplicants.Ever attentive o themultiplecausal factors hatplay in organizational ife,Karabel writes "in the language ofsociology,Yale judged its ymbolic apitalto be even moreprecious han tseconomiccapital." Yale would not sacrifice reputationfor short-term ain. Echoing thecontemporaryheorizing fBourdieu,Karabel pointsout that hehistory fcollegeadmissions nd thedefinition f merit lso points o a broader hange ntheAmericanstratificationtructure: shiftaway from economic capital as a means of classreproductiono indirect ransmission ia cultural apital;as such,thebattleover thedefinition f merit ncollege admissionshas largely een a battlewithin heelite,fortheworking lass has largelybeen excludedwhile theeconomicallyprivileged oldclass" of businessmenhas competedforslots withthe culturally rivileged"newclass" ofknowledge-basedprofessionals.t is a story f the rise ofcultural apital.For all of thetransitionsn thedefinition f meritKarabel offers finelyhonedanalysisthatpointsup theagencyof the individualuniversity residents nd theiradmissionsdirectors,henegotiated nvironment f competing nterest roups,andtheconstraints f broader ocietyforces. t is a cultural nd politicalhistory felitehigher ducation that ntegrates gencyand structure,nd theory, ata,and method.One finds no sense of arbitrary isciplinary istinctionswithin his work.Historyand sociology, forexample, are seamlessly interwoven, voiding what Bourdieucalls the"disastrous"separationbetween these two academic disciplines.KarabePswork can be seen as an expressionof whatJuliaAdams et al. (Adams et al. 2005)identifys the recent hirdwave ofhistoricalociology,whichgivesnewemphasis otheagencyof actors.Karabel shows how the HYP presidentsnd their dmissionsdirectors evised,modified, nd adaptedtheir dmission ystems o promote qualityofopportunitys a safeguard gainstmore radicaldemands for qualityofcondition.We see inhisanalysismulti-dimensionalmagesofthesekey ndividualswho draw onvariouscultural esources o formulateheirnterestsnd desires hat epresentreativeadaptationsochanging ircumstancesndindoingso reorientnddefend he nterestsof their ositions nd institutions.tructure nd agency ntersect o thatwe see boththeeffects f structuren agencyand thecreative nnovation fagencyon structures.And culture s constitutivef institutionaloweras well as an expression f it.The Chosen offersmemorablebiographicalsketches of pivotal figures, uch asFranklinDelano Roosevelt, Princeton's PresidentWoodrow Wilson, Harvard'spresidentsCharles W. Eliot, A. Lawrence Lowell, and JamesBryantConant,andYale's KingmanBrewster nd his dean of admissions,R. Inslee Clark Jr.Karabelmoves deftlybetween biographical glimpses of these important ctors and theinstitutionalontextsthey stepped into and attempted o mold. He bringssolidarchivaldata and sociological theory nto a lively narrative; n doing so he hascreated a text hathas both iteraryppeal and sociological insight.This capacitytoattract broader ppeal makesthisoutstanding ook quitedistinctive nthefieldofpolitical sociology. It is also public sociology in that it informsdirectlythecontemporarydebate over race-based affirmative ction. By challenging theuniversal notionof merit,Karabel's book shows once again thatthe debate over} Springer



10/12

Theor oc (2008) 37:409-419 417the natureof equalityof opportunitynd how it should be expanded is not ust amatter fprinciple; t is also a matter fpoliticsand institutionalnterests.

The Chosen can also be read as Karabel's critical reflections n meritocraticideals: to what extentdo, can, and should they governthe systemof rewards nmodern ociety.On this,Karabel is ambivalent.His work shows convincingly hatour definitions f merit re historical ather hanuniversal n thattheybothreflectand constitute social elite domination and struggle. Even when intellectualachievement ecomes the ideal standard, he actual practicesof these elite schoolsfall farshortof the ideal proclaimedas this book amplydemonstrates. he quasi-meritocratic egime currentlyn place "is not a meritocracy"548) because ofinstitutionalreferences or certainpowerfulconstituencies nd because the verydefinition f "merit" tself rivileges hose "attributesmostabundantly ossessed bydominant ocial groups" 549).At least until the late 1980s Harvard- widely consideredthe world's leadingresearchuniversity had a 10% quota on "intellectuals" those admitted trictlynacademic grounds) and Yale was similar. For this reason Karabel points out -following hethinkingf Max Weber- that n "ideal ofa meritocracy a systemnwhichpower playsno role indefiningmerit'and inwhichrich ndpoor alike enjoygenuinely qual opportunitieso succeed - is inherentlynattainable"550).Nonetheless, hisdoes not ead Karabel to concludethat he deal of a meritocracyshould be discardedor that"attempts o render he systemmore meritocraticredoomed to failure" 550). He considersthe imperfectmeritocraticystemwe havetoday to be a vast improvement ver the older systembased on highlyvisibleheritage nd privilege.Elite college admissionshave gained in gender, thnic, ndracialdiversityhatKarabel applauds.He would nothave us return o the era of theearlytwentiethenturywhenHarvardadmittedmost of its students n the basis ofacademicmeritknowledgeof theclassics). Indeed,he calls forfurtherxpansionofmeritdiversity.He proposes fourmeasuresthat could furtherdvance the currentquasi-meritocraticegimetoward its ideal: eliminatepreferences orlegacies, endearly admissions and early action, reduce preferences orrecruited thletes,andembracea new definitionf merit hatwould includeclass diversity.While adopting hesefourpolicy changeswould hardly ransformhesystemofelitecollege admissions, heywould pushthem bit closerto the meritocraticdealsthese schools proclaim.Yet the book unearths historicalrecordof these schoolspursuing heirown institutionalnterests bove those of students nd the broadersociety.School administratorsarely ursuepolicies forvalues or ideals without hepressureor supportof powerfulsocial carriers.Even "such modest measures areunlikely obe implementednlesspowerful ressure whethernternal,xternal, rboth - is applied" (555). 10Here Karabel seems strikingly essimistic.While hesuggests omemodestreformmeasures, t s noteworthyhat n the endKarabel doesnot lay out a politicsfor nstitutionalhange. Perhapshe does not see an obvious

emerging oliticalforce hatwould do that.Perhapsthere s none. Shortof a periodof social crisissimilar n intensityo the 1968 urbanriots hatmotivated lite schooladministratorsearful f a crumbling ocial order to reach out beyond theirusual10A pointmade n an insightfulnalysis y David Karen 1991) of thepolitics fhigher ducationadmissions.

1Springer



11/12

418 Theor oc (2008) 37:409^*19constituencies to the disenfranchised, here seems little chance for significantchanges in prevailing patterns. Real change does not come withoutcost" (555)Karabel notes, and for the possibilityof increasingthe class diversity f the BigThree,Karabel observes theabsence of a potentially owerful dvocacy force theAmericanworking lass. Indeed,without powerful oliticalforce n sight,Karabelis obliged to resort o moral admonition.He asks:

is it too much to ask the leaders of our mostprestigiousnstitutions f highereducation institutionshat onstantly roclaimtheir ommitmento the dealsofmeritocracynd inclusion that hey xhibit he same integritynd firmnessof character heydemandof their pplications?" 555)Good question. But absent a political forcein sight,and as Karabel's history fchange nadmissionsshows, tmuch more ikely hat lite school leaderswill followtheirmaterial nd ideal interests han their deals.

Finally, even if we were able to approach much more closely the ideal ofrewardingndividuals on the basis of their ntellectual chievements,Karabel seeslimitsto even a successful meritocratic ystem.If the prospectsfor significantchangeseemelusive,the deologicaleffects f meritocraticdeals arealreadywithusand it is this darker ide of themeritocracyhatKarabel also stresses.Like MichaelYoung in his classic The Rise of theMeritocracy 1961[1958]), Karabel believesselectingand rewarding ndividuals on the basis of talent and performances a"reasonable principle"but "seriouslyflawed as a governingsocietal ideal." Thedistinctions worth onsidering. qualityofopportunityeed notreplacethe deal ofequalityof condition s itseems to have done inthe minds andpractices f so manyAmericans. Both Young and Karabel would retainthe equalityof condition as aguidingprinciple s his call for class diversityn college admissionssuggests.Butthe ideology of individual merit also has its darker side as Young propheticallysuggested fifty ears ago. Inspired by the work of Young, Karabel arguesthatthemeritocracyultimatelydeflects "attention from the real issues of povertyandinequalityof condition onto a chimericalquest for unlimited ocial mobility" 5).Karabel believes that Young's prophetic fear is in full realization before us:Americansbelieve there s more social mobility hanthere ctually s,Americans restrikinglyolerant f economic inequality,Americans are much more inclined toinvest n higher ducation than n the social safetywelfarenetfor hose who fail nthe competitiverace, and Americansbelieve thatthe way to address economicinequality s to increase educationalopportunity. ore and more thecoveted slots atourmost selective schools go to the nheritorsfcultural nd social capitalas well aseconomic capital. Yet in theminds of manyAmericans,success and failurego toindividuals lone: winners an self-congratulatend losershave onlythemselves oblame. In Young's words,theequalityof opportunityn factmeans the"equalityofopportunityo be unequal." It is this dark side of themeritocracy"hat oth Karabeland Young would have us consider. It encourages elite self-righteousnessnddampensthe chances forcritical nsight hatpermits hedisadvantagedto see thattheir personaltroubles"maywell be "public issues" (Mills 1959).111 The corrosiveffectsfmeritocraticdeologyn bothwinnersnd osers s anearly hemenKarabel's(1972)work.} Springer



12/12

Theor oc (2008) 37:409^19 419ReferencesAdams,J.,Clemens, . S., etal. (2005). Introduction:ocialtheory, odernity,nd the hreewavesofhistoricalociology.nJ.Adams, . S. Clemens, A. S. Orloff(Eds.) emaking odernity:olitics,history,ndsociology. urham, C: DukeUniversityress.Baltzell, . D. (1964). The Protestantstablishment:ristocracynd Caste inAmerica.New York:Vintage.Baltzell, . D. (1976).The Protestantstablishmentevisited. merican cholar 5.Bourdieu, . (1984 [1979]). Distinction: social critique ftheudgement ftaste.Cambridge, A:Harvard niversityress.Bourdieu,. 1996 [1989]).The tatenobility:lite chools n the ieldofpower. tanford,A: StanfordUniversityress.Bourdieu, .,& Passeron, . C. (1990 [1970]).Reproductionnsociety,ulture,nd education. everlyHills,CA: SagePublications.Gerth, . H.,& Mills,C. W. 1970).FromMax Weber: ssays nsociology.ondon:Routledge KeganPaul.Karabel, . 1972). Perspectivesnopenadmission. ducational ecordWinter):2-43.Karabel, . 1984).Status roup truggle,rganizationalnterests,nd the imits f nstitutionalutonomy:The transformationfHarvard, ale,andPrinceton,918-1940.TheoryndSociety,3, 1-40.Karen, . (1991).Thepoliticsfclass,race, ndgender: ccesstohigherducationntheUnited tates,1960-1986.American ournal fEducationFebruary).Lamont,M. (1992).Money,morals,& manners: he culture ftheFrench nd theAmerican pper-middle lass.Chicago:TheUniversityfChicagoPress.Lamont,M., & Fournier, . (1992). Cultivatingifferences:ymbolic oundariesnd themaking finequality.hicago:UniversityfChicagoPress.Michels, . (1962).Political arties.New York:FreePress.Mills,C. W. 1959). The ociological magination.ew York:Oxford niversityress.Murphy, . (1988). Social closure:Thetheoryfmonopolizationnd exclusion.New York: OxfordUniversityress.Parkin,. (1974). TheSocialAnalysis fClass Structure.ondon:Tavistock.Parkin,. 1979).Marxismnd classtheory: bourgeois ritique. ewYork:Columbia niversityress.Weber,M. (1970). Thesocialpsychologyftheworld eligions.n H. H. Gerth, C. W Mills Eds.)FromMax Weberpp.267-301).London:Routledge KeganPaul Ltd.Weber,M. (1978).Economyndsociety. erkeley: niversityfCaliforniaress.Young,M. (1961 [1958]).Theriseofthemeritocracy,870-2033:Anessayon educationnd nequality.New York:Penguin.

David L. Swartz s AssistantrofessorfSociology t BostonUniversity.e is the uthorfCulturePower:The ociologyfPierre ourdieuUniversityfChicagoPress1997)and co-editorwithVeraL.Zolberg) fAfterourdieu:nfluence,ritique,laborationKluwerAcademic ublishers004).He isaSenior ditor nd Book ReviewEditor orTheoryndSociety. is researchnterestsncludehe tudyfelites ndstratification,ducation,ulture,eligion,nd socialtheory,ndhe is currentlyritingbookon thepolitical ociology f Pierre ourdieu.

} Springer

Social Closure in American Elite Higher Education

Documents

Transcript of Social Closure in American Elite Higher Education