PDF Summary:Excellent Sheep, by William Deresiewicz

Elite colleges and universities in the US typically accept less than 10% of applicants, but their influence stretches far beyond this small group. In Excellent Sheep, author and former Yale professor William Deresiewicz makes the case that these institutions’ influence is negative. He argues that they’re so selective and profit-oriented that they contribute to social inequality and deprive students of high-quality learning.

In this guide, we’ll examine two problems with elite US colleges and universities and explain why Deresiewicz claims they harm both society and students. Then, we’ll explore solutions by describing how governments, schools, and parents can collectively overhaul US higher education—and how today’s students can make the most of their college years in the meantime. As we explore these ideas, we’ll fact-check the author’s claims by providing both supportive evidence and counterexamples. We’ll also discuss ways in which some elite US schools have changed since the publication of Excellent Sheep in 2014. Furthermore, we’ll supplement the author’s ideas with actionable steps.

(continued)...

Research supports Deresciewicz’s claims that people who fixate on outshining their peers, fear failure, and lack both imagination and communication skills make ineffective leaders. Let’s examine research on each of these traits.

Competitiveness: One study found that when business leaders fixate on outshining their competitors, they make poor decisions. This is because highly competitive scenarios (such as two companies bidding to acquire a third company) plunge leaders into an intense emotional state that compromises their decision-making abilities.

Fear of failure: Research reveals that leaders who fear failure often agonize over decisions, procrastinate on important tasks, and avoid positive risk-taking. When leaders are afraid of making mistakes, their fear causes decision paralysis. They therefore opt for the safest choice (even when it’s a poor one).

Communication: Experts who see leaders as collaborative changemakers argue that leaders must actively listen to others, clearly express themselves, and phrase feedback thoughtfully. Leaders who lack these communication skills struggle to collaborate with co-leaders and constituents.

Imagination: Research shows that leaders with strong imaginations have a greater capacity for seeing problems from multiple perspectives and envisioning novel solutions. Leaders who lack these skills make decisions that perpetuate the status quo rather than improve it.

Effect 4: Exclusion of Non-Elite Students

So far, we’ve discussed how selective criteria shape the lives of admitted students and alumni. Next, we’ll consider the students who aren’t admitted. According to Deresiewicz, elite schools’ criteria are so selective and narrowly defined that mostly only upper-class students have the means to meet them. He argues that this exclusion of non-elite students perpetuates social inequality.

In this section, we’ll describe four factors that elite schools’ admissions teams consider. We’ll explain how each factor privileges affluent students. Then, we’ll explore why this exclusion of non-elite students perpetuates social inequality.

Four Factors That Exclude Non-Elite Students

Admissions teams consider the following factors, each of which privileges upper-class students:

Standardized test scores. Admissions teams rely on these scores as a measure of intelligence, but the author cites evidence that standardized test scores correlate with family income instead of intelligence. This correlation reflects the fact that wealthy families can afford to access supports that boost their students’ scores, such as well-funded schools, test preparation courses, and tutors.

Leadership experience. The evidence admissions officers use to measure a student’s leadership potential reflects a bias toward leadership experiences wealthy students can access (such as service trips) over those of many lower-income students (such as providing childcare for siblings).

Extracurriculars. Elite schools prefer students who engage in many extracurricular activities, believing this indicates well-roundedness. However, these criteria privilege upper-class students, who are more likely to attend well-funded schools. Well-funded schools offer many extracurriculars such as sports and clubs.

Social identities. Elite colleges show a preference for students with identities associated with wealth and power, including legacy students (children of alumni). This is because these children and their families are more likely to pay full tuition and later become donors.

Recent Updates in Elite Colleges’ Admissions Criteria

Since the publishing of Excellent Sheep in 2014, some elite colleges have revised their admissions criteria. Let’s examine some of these updates.

Standardized test scores: In 2021, a number of elite colleges and universities made it optional for applicants to submit their standardized test scores. Many schools did this because the Covid-19 pandemic made it challenging to schedule exams. Some elite schools, such as MIT, have started requiring test scores again; others, such as Cornell, are gathering data to determine whether to make the switch to test-optional admissions permanent.

Leadership experience and extracurriculars: A 2016 report crafted by a coalition of college admissions officers (many from elite schools) recommended that when college admissions teams look for evidence of leadership and extracurriculars in prospective students, they should count experiences such as caring for younger siblings and providing income for their family. The report’s authors claim that this update would value the experience of non-elite students whose family responsibilities prevent them from pursuing other leadership experiences and extracurriculars. So far, close to 140 college admissions deans have committed to implementing the report’s suggestions.

Social identities: In recent years, many low-income and first-generation students have advocated for elite schools to eliminate their admissions bias towards legacy students. These advocates claim this bias excludes low-income students and students of color, since legacy students are predominantly white and upper-class. Some elite schools, such as Amherst College, have recently eliminated their preference for legacy students to make their admissions process more equitable.

Why the Exclusion of Non-Elite Students Perpetuates Social Inequality

The exclusion of non-elite students through these high, narrow criteria negatively impacts society. Specifically, Deresiewicz argues that elite schools’ exclusive admissions criteria stall social mobility. He offers two main reasons for this.

First, selective criteria that exclude non-elite students reduce their access to leadership positions. The author notes that attending an elite college opens doors for careers in political leadership. This means fewer people from lower-class backgrounds end up in positions that provide them with a platform for increasing social mobility.

(Shortform note: Not only are non-elite people excluded from schools that provide access to leadership positions, but they also face additional barriers to becoming political leaders. Research has found that fewer working-class people run for office in the first place. This is because many working-class people can’t afford to run, since political campaigning is time-intensive and expensive. Furthermore, although voters show no bias against working-class candidates, party leaders prefer supporting upper-class candidates over working-class ones.)

A second way elite schools’ admissions criteria stall social mobility is by limiting students’ opportunities for collaboration across social classes. As previously noted, democracy thrives when people collaborate to envision and fight for social change. Because elite colleges’ student bodies are majority upper class, there are few opportunities for students from various social classes to learn how to collaborate.

(Shortform note: Research suggests that it’s not just the low numbers of lower-class students on elite campuses that limits students’ opportunities for positive interaction across social classes. Lower-class students face exclusion even after they’re admitted. This exclusion prevents positive interactions across social classes. Research shows that some elite schools’ efforts to include low-income students actually reinforce class boundaries. For instance, one school recognized that low-income students need an income stream on campus, and their solution was to provide students with roles as dormitory custodians—roles that humiliated these students when they realized they were cleaning the dorms of their upper-class peers.)

Problem 2: Elite Schools Prioritize Profits Over Teaching

Next, we’ll turn to the second problem with elite colleges and universities: the low quality of their academic programs. Deresiewicz argues that elite schools provide a low-quality education because they concern themselves more with generating profits that ensure their future existence than with the art of teaching. In this section, we’ll explore two ways elite schools prioritize profits over teaching. Then, we’ll investigate how this emphasis harms students and society.

Two Ways Elite Schools Prioritize Profits Over Teaching

Method 1: Elite Schools Treat Students as Customers

The first way elite schools prioritize profits over teaching is by treating students like customers instead of learners. Deresciewicz argues that elite schools prioritize students’ customer satisfaction because, as previously noted, they rely on upper-class students’ financial support. These students’ families are more likely to pay full tuition, and they and their families are more likely to later become donors. Elite schools treat prospective students like customers by attracting them with unnecessary perks (such as free laundry service) that don’t improve the quality of education.

(Shortform note: Research on college budgets reveals that when elite schools invest in efforts to attract wealthy students, it leaves less funding for financial aid. This reduces non-elite students’ access to these colleges. In a podcast episode, journalist Malcolm Gladwell, author of Outliers, compared how two elite colleges allocated their funds. One college invested in top-tier dining hall food and offered less financial aid; the other provided mediocre dining hall food and offered generous financial aid. In analyzing these schools’ different approaches to budgeting, he argued that elite schools should prioritize making college more accessible to low-income students over efforts to attract high-income students.)

After students are admitted, elite schools maintain their customer satisfaction in two ways. First, they praise them excessively for their exceptional abilities. Second, they engage in grade inflation: giving them higher grades than they deserve.

The Harmful Effects of Grade Inflation and Ability-Based Praise

Research shows that grade inflation harms students by reducing their resilience in the face of challenges. Because of grade inflation, students don’t have to work as hard to do well. This reduces their stamina for challenges, leaving them ill-equipped to deal with the demands of post-college life.

Praising students for their abilities also weakens their resilience. Psychologist Carol Dweck, author of Mindset, found that teens praised for their ability performed worse on tasks than teens praised for their effort. Those praised for their ability avoided challenging tasks that could promote their learning because they feared exposing flaws in their abilities. By contrast, teens praised for their effort opted for these challenges: Effort-based praise motivated them to continue working hard. These findings are true for college students as well, suggesting that college professors can support students’ academic growth by praising them for their effort instead of their abilities.

Method 2: Elite Schools Incentivize Research Over Teaching

A second way elite schools prioritize profits over teaching is by overemphasizing research. Deresiewicz argues that because professor-led research brings in funding, elite schools reward professors for research more than for teaching. These institutions incentivize a research focus through their tenure track system. When a committee decides whether to grant a professor a tenure track position, they give more weight to their research publications than to their strengths as a teacher.

(Shortform note: Research reveals that elite schools’ overemphasis on research not only compromises students’ learning but also compromises the quality of professors’ research. Institutions are more likely to reward tenure to professors who publish more research, since this is a straightforward way to assess their performance. This emphasis on quantity reduces quality: Because professors rush to produce more research, their findings sometimes promote false conclusions. To remedy this, experts recommend rewarding professors for producing research that improves society over producing more research.)

Next, let’s explore how elite schools’ focus on profits harms both students and society.

The Negative Effects of Elite Schools’ Focus on Profits

Effect 1: Students Have Limited Opportunities for Self-Insight

First, Deresiewicz argues that because research is so time-consuming, professors are unavailable to provide students with experiences that encourage self-insight and character-building. Professors, and less-experienced instructors hired to relieve them of their teaching obligations, provide students with facts and conclusions instead of opportunities to develop their own insights and conclusions.

The author argues that this model of teaching harms both students and society. As previously noted, when students lack opportunities for character-building and self-insight, they graduate less prepared to build a meaningful life and they’re ill-equipped to uphold democracy.

The Benefits of Involving Students in Research

Deresiewicz frames research as a negative aspect of professors’ work that pulls them away from students and compromises students’ character-building. However, professor research and student learning may be less mutually exclusive than he portrays.

Many elite institutions offer hands-on opportunities for students to learn by assisting professors with their research. For example, Harvard University offers summer science research opportunities for undergraduates. Studies have shown that faculty-student research collaborations such as these build students’ character. More specifically, these opportunities increase students’ curiosity and develop both their communication and collaboration skills.

Effect 2: Elite Schools’ Messages About Meritocracy Threaten Society

Deresiewicz argues that elite schools’ treatment of students as customers reinforces harmful myths about meritocracy that perpetuate social inequality. A meritocracy is a system founded on the belief that people with high merit (academic strengths and talents) should have the most financial and political power.

The author claims that when elite schools shower their customer-students with praise about how exceptional they are, it sends students the message that they earned their place in the meritocracy. However, this message is a myth. The US isn’t a meritocracy because, as previously noted, affluent students with merit have more access to elite schools than non-affluent students with merit. This myth of meritocracy obscures the truth that social inequality, not lack of merit, excludes non-elite people, making it less likely that this inequality is addressed.

(Shortform note: Recent research supports Deresciewicz’s claim that unawareness of social inequality—in this case, unawareness created by the myth of meritocracy—further perpetuates that inequality. One simulation-based study found that when people playing the role of policymakers were unaware that taxpayers’ low incomes led them to pay minimal taxes, they assumed these taxpayers didn’t care about the public good. The roleplayers then punished the taxpayers with additional taxes. By contrast, when the roleplayers were aware of social inequality, they had the opposite reaction: They raised taxes on wealthier taxpayers. These findings suggest that awareness of social inequality influences peoples’ choices about wealth redistribution.)

Solution 1: Expand Access to Higher Education

Next, we’ll turn to Deresiewicz’s ideas on how to realize his vision of an ideal college education. We’ll begin by examining his solution to the first problem we discussed earlier: elite schools’ selective, exclusive admissions criteria. He proposes that Americans should replace their current system of higher education with a less-exclusive one that no longer privileges upper-class children. In this section, we’ll describe Deresiewicz’s recommendations for how governments, institutions of higher education, and parents can play a role in this solution.

Government Role: Address the Roots of Disparities in College Access

The author claims that high school students will have equal opportunities to access high-quality education if the government equally funds all public schools. Because public schools are funded by property taxes, students living in lower-income communities attend underfunded schools and graduate from high school less prepared for college. Equalizing K-12 school funding would ensure all students attend high schools that prepare them for college.

Would Equalizing K-12 Funding Equalize Access to Elite Colleges?

Deresiewicz doesn’t specify whether this reform would equalize students’ access to college in general or particularly to elite colleges. Let’s explore if the latter would be true.

Equalizing school funding could make students from lower-income and higher-income communities less distinguishable from each other on some application criteria, such as standardized test scores and extracurriculars. This would equalize the admissions process to some degree.

However, other criteria—such as students’ social identities—reflect students’ family wealth as well as the wealth of their community. These criteria would still reveal students’ socioeconomic status, opening up the possibility for admissions teams to prefer wealthier students. In the next section, we’ll further explore the author’s ideas on reforming these admissions criteria as well.

College and University Role: Overhaul Admissions Criteria

Next, Deresiewicz argues that elite schools should replace their admissions criteria with criteria that no longer privilege the students of wealthy families. This reform would increase non-affluent students’ access to these schools, opening doors for them to become leaders with the power to reduce social inequality. Deresiewicz recommends college admissions teams overhaul their admissions criteria using three specific methods.

Method 1: Eliminate Bias Toward Wealthy Students

First, he recommends that admissions criteria show no bias towards students with social identities associated with wealth. This includes legacy students.

(Shortform note: As previously noted, in recent years, some elite schools have eliminated their preference for legacy students to make their admissions process more equitable. However, a law professor argues that when elite schools eliminate their preference for legacy students, they lose funding. This is because legacy students’ families often pay full tuition and later become donors. He warns that limited funding could reduce the quality of elite schools’ academics.)

To replace criteria that privilege wealthy students, the author recommends schools instead show a preference toward students with personality traits that signal they’ll be strong citizens and changemakers, such as students with original, creative ideas.

(Shortform note: What criteria could college admissions officers use to spot students who are original thinkers? One option is to ask high school teachers to evaluate their students’ creative abilities. Researchers have found that creativity ratings reflect no bias towards any particular racial group, suggesting that these criteria could both provide a window into students’ capacity for original thought and reduce racial stereotyping in the admissions process.)

Method 2: Use Class-Based Affirmative Action

Second, Deresciewicz claims that elite schools should increase equity by replacing their race-based affirmative action with class-based affirmative action. While race-based affirmative action increases racial diversity, he claims that it doesn’t significantly increase the socioeconomic diversity of the student body. This is because the students of color elite colleges admit typically come from wealthy families.

(Shortform note: Replacing race-based affirmative action with class-based affirmative action may increase campuses’ socioeconomic diversity, but experts warn doing so would create a new problem: reducing those campuses’ racial diversity. This is because the majority of low-income students are white, so increasing their access to elite colleges would reduce spots for students of color. Instead, experts recommend elite colleges increase both their racial and socioeconomic diversity by reducing their preferences for legacy students, who tend to be mostly white and wealthy.)

Method 3: Use Weighted Standardized Test Scores

Lastly, Deresciewicz recommends elite schools overhaul their admissions criteria by replacing regular standardized test scores with weighted ones. Weighted standardized test scores are adjusted to reflect a student’s income level. The author argues this is a better measure of achievement than unweighted standardized test scores, since unweighted scores correlate with family income.

(Shortform note: Since the publishing of Excellent Sheep in 2014, some elite schools have started using a type of weighted standardized test score to increase admissions equity. The nonprofit organization that manages the SAT recently started assigning each test-taker an “adversity score.” This score quantifies students’ poverty level, and the organization sends it to colleges along with their test scores. Adversity scores have helped elite colleges, such as Yale, enroll more first-generation and low-income students.)

Family Role: Stop Giving Your Child an Advantage

Finally, Deresiewicz believes that elite parents have a role to play in improving US higher education. He argues that parents of elite children should stop prioritizing the needs of their kids over those of less-affluent kids. He claims that when upper-class parents try to increase their children’s chances of getting into elite colleges, they both make their children miserable and give their kids an unfair advantage.

How Should Affluent Families Support Admissions Equity?

Deresiewicz doesn’t provide any specific action steps affluent parents should take to support their child’s path to college without prioritizing their needs over those of non-affluent children. A Harvard college admissions resource for families urges affluent parents to support admissions equity through the following actions:

Share resources with high school students in less-affluent areas. These resources could include admissions officers’ contact information, transportation to college tours, and test preparation books. This action would increase non-elite students’ access to information that could improve their chances of acceptance at a selective college.

Ask high schools to limit students’ extracurriculars. This would reduce the stress students experience when their schedule is overloaded with extracurriculars. If the high schools in question are in high-income areas, it would also reduce the admissions advantage affluent students have over students whose schools offer fewer extracurriculars.

Solution 2: Prioritize Teaching and Learning

Next, let’s consider solutions to the second problem with elite schools: their emphasis on profits over teaching. Deresiewicz offers recommendations for how colleges and universities, and college students themselves, can improve students’ educational experience. In this section, we’ll share his recommendations.

College and University Role: Prioritize Teaching

The author argues that elite schools should ensure that professors prioritize teaching over research. Shifting professors’ priorities would enable them to build students’ character and nurture their self-insight. As previously noted, their inspiring guidance would both enrich students’ lives and equip them with the skills to uphold democracy. The author argues that during the tenure evaluation process, professors’ teaching experience and strengths should be valued just as much as, or more than, their research experience.

The Role of Student Evaluations in Professors’ Teaching Quality

One way colleges and universities can value professors’ teaching is by reducing the role student evaluations play in assessing professors’ performance. A recent study found that teaching quality suffers when administrators overemphasize students’ evaluations of their professors.

This mode of evaluation reduces the quality of teaching because students tend to highly rate professors who amuse them, assign little work, and inflate their grades. By contrast, they give low ratings to professors who grade students accurately and provide rigorous teaching. Instead of emphasizing student evaluations during the tenure review process, schools could consider other evidence to evaluate teaching quality, such as video recordings of professors’ lessons.

Student Role: Prioritize Learning Over Prestige

Deresciewicz claims that college-age students don’t need to wait for these systemic changes to happen before they can experience a high-quality education. He urges students to actively create a high-quality education for themselves. Specifically, he encourages them to undermine the priorities of elite schools by prioritizing learning over prestige. By seeking experiences that prioritize learning, they can experience the benefits of self-insight and character-building. In this section, we’ll share Deresciewicz’s tips for how prospective and current college students can achieve this.

Tips for Prospective College Students

First, Deresciewicz advises prospective college students to disregard rankings and prestige. Measures of reputation reflect how profit-oriented and selective a school is, not the quality of its education. Instead, he implores students to attend second-tier liberal arts colleges and liberal arts colleges that are housed within public universities. He claims these schools are more likely to value a high-quality education over reputation.

(Shortform note: Several experts on college admissions agree with Deresciewicz’s assessment that rankings don’t always reflect a school’s quality of education. However, these experts point out that it's helpful to research schools’ rankings for particular programs. Some colleges and universities have certain programs that are strong, even if their overall rankings are low. Similarly, some strong colleges have weak programs. Before applying to any school, including second-tier colleges, high school students should check the quality of the programs they’re most interested in.)

Deresciewicz’s second tip for prospective college students is to shadow a current student at a college in which they’re interested to preview its culture and academic programs. He encourages them to look for evidence that the school deeply values learning, such as students that are intellectually curious (rather than stressed), professors who enjoy the art of teaching, and classes that prioritize character-building.

Make the Most of a College Tour

While not all colleges and universities offer the option to shadow a student, many colleges offer student-led tours that provide a window into schools’ cultures and academics. Former admissions officers recommend asking tour guides the following questions:

• How do students like to spend their free time? This question provides insight into whether students are overwhelmed with extracurriculars, or whether they have the time to dedicate to intellectual curiosity.

• What words would you use to describe the students here? The tour guide’s answer may reflect what character traits the school values.

• What’s something you wish was different about this school? This question may reveal whether the school places enough emphasis on learning and character-building, and it may reveal concerns about the teaching quality of professors.

Tips for Current College Students

Deresciewicz argues that current college students can also actively create a high-quality education for themselves. In this section, we’ll share three of his tips for doing so.

First, he recommends that college students connect with inspiring professors. Although many professors are too occupied with research to form relationships with students, there are exceptions. College students can ask older students to recommend professors who are committed to the art of teaching. Then, they should attend these professors’ office hours to receive extra guidance on their journey towards self-insight.

(Shortform note: What are some ways college students can make the most of professors’ office hours? One resource advises them to see office hours as a chance to develop a relationship with a professor. This relationship could later grow into a mentorship. College students can start building this relationship by asking a professor to share more about their research interests. Additionally, students can share what they’re most curious about with a professor and request advice on what subjects or courses to pursue.)

Second, the author urges college students to follow their interests. Instead of automatically gravitating towards prestigious careers such as finance, they should take time to discover what subject areas ignite their curiosity. To explore their interests, they can take classes in a wide variety of subject areas and ask professors for guidance in selecting a good-fit major.

(Shortform note: Some college students whose interests don’t align with lucrative careers may have a hard time choosing between these majors and a major that’s more likely to guarantee a stable income. College career counselors, aware of this dilemma, advise students to choose a major based on the marketable skills it equips them with rather than the job that shares its name. For instance, a student wondering whether to major in history shouldn’t base their decision on whether they want to be a historian. Instead, they can consider some of the skills they’d gain majoring in history, such as writing and reading.)

Lastly, Deresciewicz advises college students to expect and embrace failure. They’ll make progress on their path towards self-insight if they learn from failure rather than fear it. Self-insight is a messy process that requires you to learn from your mistakes. He reminds students that when they receive constructive criticism from a professor, it’s an opportunity to learn and grow—not a sign they’re inadequate.

In Mindset, psychologist Carol Dweck argues that it’s possible to transition from fearing failure to having a “growth mindset” that embraces failure. She offers several recommendations that anyone (including college students) can follow to move towards a failure-embracing growth mindset:

• Be patient with yourself. When facing a new experience, such as taking a class in a new subject area, don’t expect yourself to be perfect from the start. Remind yourself: Mastering something requires time, effort, and practice.

• Welcome critical feedback. Typically, when a mentor, friend or loved one gives you feedback, it’s because they want to help you improve. Instead of taking the feedback as an indication that you’re a failure, remind yourself: Feedback helps me improve.

• Reflect and try again. If you make a goal that you later fail to meet, reflect on how you could improve next time. Ask yourself, What did I fail to do the first time that I can do better next time?