(10-29-2010 08:23 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: Are we sure Rice qualifies? In terms of academics, sure, but in terms of connections and entry into the 'elite' I'm not convinced.
I think this is a good question, but I guess I thought maybe that was the author's point: that the traditional entry into the "old elite" was based on money and connections, and that the "new elite" was a group based more on merit/education. I read this article as a continuation of the author's controversial book from the 1990s, The Bell Curve. (The authors of that book actually spoke at Rice in the mid-90s about the book, and I remember there being some low-level protest of that talk.)
Anyway, I never read that book, but it was my understanding that its basic premise was that society was increasing its geographic mobility. So if you were the smartest guy in your hick town, you had more of a chance to leave for the big city than you would have, say, 100 years ago. And the best and brightest were more likely (and able) to move around, and they were all basically going to the same places (the same schools, the same urban areas, the same jobs at the same prestigious firms). The result was that they were then mingling more, and marrying, and having children--thereby joining their DNA/values to perpetuate more smart people who, in turn, continue to marry other smart people. So the idea (as I understand it, and like I said, I never read the book) is that the dumb were going to continue to stay dumb (maybe even get dumber, because there was less chance to marry someone smart because those people are moving away), and the smart were going to continue to shore up their eliteness.
Anyway, back to the article, I do think a place like Rice qualifies as a breeding ground for intelligent people, whether you call them "new elite" or not. I once heard a stat (maybe apocryphal) that the phenomenon of Rice people marrying fellow alumni is more prevalent than at any other school (alumni marrying alumni). Now, given Rice's location, I doubt there is a high instance of Rice people marrying Ivy Leaguers or people from "peer" institutions (at least comparatively), but I guess Richard Murray would say that increased mobility means that the chance of that happening is greater than it used to be.
Anecdotally, I married a Rice alum, and the wives of our suite came from: Rice, Rice, Mount Holyoke, Berkeley. One could speculate about the ethos toward education in such households. Incidentally, out of the four roommates, three had gone to private schools: St. John's, St. John's, and Georgetown Prep. (But we all met our wives in college or after.)
Where I am confused about this "new elite" idea is the fact it seems to exclude people based on schools. I used to work at a big, international law firm where there were a lot of graduates from top ten and top twenty schools. However, there were also some graduates from places like Baylor Law and UH Law (neither in the top 50, as far as I know). Yet if those people made partner and ended up living in River Oaks, listening to NPR, and reading the Sunday Times, are they not part of the "new elite" as perceived by Richard Murray? Or are they excluded because of their schooling when they were 23 years old? I fail to see what makes them different from someone who went to Exeter/Harvard/Yale Law and ends up in the exact same position at the exact same law firm?
