In Defense of Anti-Elitism

A response to William A. Henry III's "In Defense of Elitism" done for my English class.

 

 

            Although William A. Henry III makes some excellent points in defense of elitism, he is incorrect and even presumptuous with many of his other arguments. He assumes that “people go to college… to make money” (138). This statement is extremely ludicrous, because people would not waste the money it takes to go to college (an increasing amount every time we turn around, it seems) merely to make 1 1/2 times as much as they would have normally. People go to college to continue their education, to get better jobs, and because it is becoming the socially acceptable thing to do after completing high school. Henry acknowledges that college attracts “people who are already winners”, yet criticizes the country for, in essence, allowing too many people to become winners (139). What Henry does not take into account is the social pressures upon high school graduates to continue their education. In past generations, the question would have been, “Are you going to college?” or “What are you doing after high school?”, but in today’s society, it has become, “What college are you going to?”. This basic statement sums up societal views; college is not only a good idea for students after high school, but it is becoming an essential asset to gain a decent job.

            Henry attempts to appeal to taxpayers by incorrectly claiming that money spent on higher education has not paid off. Businesses with higher paying jobs open in states with higher amounts of college graduates, hire those graduates, who in turn give the state more money in taxes, along with the economic advantages the successful businesses bring with them. If less people went to college, fewer businesses like these would open, and ultimately the economy would downsize, so Henry is completely wrong in this assessment. Also, numerous studies have shown that money put into higher education is returned ten-fold (one study actually showed that every dollar gave about a seventeen dollar return). Perhaps William A. Henry III should put a little more effort into researching studies like these as well as examining economic growth; he might find more studies that show that universities contribute to not only the intellectual growth of the nation, but to the growth of the nation’s wallet.

            Elitism is unfavorable to the public because it keeps power in the hands of the few and does not allow much room for lower classes to rise up. This idea would also carry over into an elite education as long as universities cost money to attend. In earlier years, only the rich went to college because only the rich were able to afford it; Henry is suggesting a return to these years, which would essentially allow only the rich to gain the higher-paying jobs and the poor would never be able to work their way up significantly enough to overcome generational debt. This cycle is exactly where elitism fails, so unless Henry until provide a relief for this, he needs to continue the development of his argument. He cites France as one of the countries which has a lower amount of the population attending college; what he does not mention is that French students take an exam called the Baccalauréat, or the Bac for short, which upon passing, gives them access to university studies. Education in France is almost free at all levels, except private schools. Henry does not mention this fact, which allows France to accept students of all income levels, unlike American universities. If he is suggesting that we follow the French model, then he should explain that the French model includes offering nearly free education rather than keeping education only in the hands of those who can pay for it.

            Henry states that it is “more cruel to let [students] go on fooling themselves” rather than to provide them the means to see their dreams through and perhaps have them denied in the process (139). However, is that student not more successful than someone who merely gives up because the road seems too hard? Are we not preparing the student to take on another role if he or she does not succeed? Would it not be more cruel to provide them no means to reach their dreams, and dismiss them? By providing these students with an education, America has given them the ability to succeed in many roles, whether it is their dream role or not. However, if America was to just set them off with a hearty, “Oh, you will never be able to do that; get real and do this instead”, is it not allowing the country to become filled with disgruntled, bitter people who never had a shot to learn something they love? This goes back to the reason many graduates continue to college: they go to learn. Most Psychology majors love learning about the mind, most English majors take pleasure in reading and writing, and most Mathematics majors enjoy performing calculations. They do not want to earn more money; they want to be able to have a shot at a job they love. Who is William A. Henry III to tell them that they are not deserving of this dream?

Reviews

[Andromeda]

yayayay! hahah, wow you went crazy w/ this. i completely agree w/ you and henry is an absolute moron. id so be giving you a standing ovation right now if this were a speech....