Colleges Are Now a Breeding Ground for Mediocrity, Not Meritocracy | Opinion

The decision of New York University not to renew the contract of one of the most distinguished professors of organic chemistry is a sign of the times. Academic standards in general have been consistently lowered over the past several decades. That should come as no surprise, because standards for admission to colleges and universities have been lowered as well. To the extent that meritocracy is replaced by other factors, such as identity politics, the standards will continue to diminish.

It is not surprising that universities will have to lower academic standards for performance if they lower academic standards for admission. It would be unfair to admit some students on lower academic admissions standards and then impose historic performance standards on them. That would make it difficult for them to compete against students who had to meet more rigorous standards for admission. This won't be as obvious in subjects like political science where all ideas are created equal and are judged as much by the identity of the student as by content.

But it will be obvious in courses like organic chemistry where identity politics play no role in grading. That is why some—but by no means most—of Professor Maitland Jones Jr.'s students petitioned against him, and why his contract was not renewed.

By that criteria Nobel prize winning scientists would not be hired if they demanded high performance from their students.

But what about the students who can't meet the high standards of the most accomplished teachers? Should they be prevented from being admitted to medical school by receiving B- or C+ in a hard course? Perhaps there should be two sections of organic chemistry: one that is highly demanding; and one less so. In that way the best students would not suffer from a reduction in standards, while the less qualified ones would get their B+ and A- grades. But medical schools would know which section the applicant chose and would prefer the student from the more demanding section. That is as it should be. We want doctors who have excelled by the hardest standards.

Colleges have long lowered the expected standards for students admitted for their athletic rather than their academic accomplishments. There were easy courses such as geology, known as "rocks for jocks," when I was in college, too. Pre-med students stayed away from such "gut" classes. They took organic chemistry and worked their butts off to get good grades in them. Some did. Some didn't. But no one suggested lowering the standards for pre-med.

The ultimate losers today's "everyone gets a trophy" mentality are the best students who work the hardest. That includes students from non-elite backgrounds who have to get good grades to compete with the familial and class advantages of the elite—the real privileged. Today, it is class rather than race that gives the greatest advantages.

Race-based rather than class-based affirmative action makes wealthy and well-prepared Black students doubly advantaged, while punishing working class white students with a double disadvantage. This double disadvantage can be overcome by rigorous and meritocratic grading, especially in tough courses like organic chemistry, where not everyone wins the prize.

The Maitland Jones case is symptomatic of an even greater current threat to meritocracy: the elimination of grades and admission tests. If grades and test scores are eliminated—as universities are being pressured to do—what criteria will be employed to determine who our surgeons, pilots, engineers, and lawyers will be? Identity politics? Personality? Buttering up professors? Privileged backgrounds? These subjective criteria will hurt the less privileged more than rigorous and neutral grading.

I recall my first experience with privilege over grades. I was first in my class when I graduated Yale law school in 1962. Yet I was passed over for summer jobs which went to my fellow students in the middle of the class with elite backgrounds and heritage. Some of it was old-fashioned antisemitism, but it also reflected a preference for those with the most privilege. Eventually, I received a few offers (from Jewish or the few "mixed" firms) based on my high grades. Without these grades, I would have received no offers, as was the case with Jewish students in the middle of the class. It was grades that allowed me to complete—albeit not completely successfully—with my most privileged classmates. I went out of my way to speak up in the most difficult classes with the hardest graders to show my mettle. In a world where everyone got trophies, I could not have stood out.

There are no free lunches when it comes to academic standards. Some may benefit—at least temporarily—from lowering the standards, while others may suffer from losing the competitive advantages of meritocracy based on high standards. The ultimate losers from low standards are all Americans who will receive substandard care from those whose job it is to protect us from harm—doctors, engineers, pilots, lawyers, police, firefighters, etc.

Keeping the standards high and taking steps to help students and applicants achieve these high standards will serve all of us better than handing out orange slices and trophies to everyone—and it might even save lives.

Follow Alan Dershowitz on
Twitter: @AlanDersh
Facebook: @AlanMDershowitz
New podcast: The Dershow, on Spotify, YouTube and iTunes
Dersh.Substack.com

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.