-
Greetings everyone and welcome to the first session, our first live session of Introduction to Sociology.
-
The last few days have been simply extraordinary in terms of the response and the discussion
-
on the course website which I’ve been following.
-
Although I have not been able to respond to each and every one of your postings,
-
I want you to know that I’ve been looking carefully at the many things that you have written
-
and I am so impressed with the level and quality of the discussion and the ways
-
in which you are all helping one another along to develop a better understanding of the material.
-
This is peer learning at its best and this a very impressive group of students from all over the world.
-
I want to begin today by thanking my own administration —
-
the President and the Provost, and the Dean of the faculty and the Dean of the college,
-
and the Associate Dean, and the people at the McGraw Teaching Center,
-
and the people working here in the broadcast center at Princeton University for making all of this possible.
-
It’s this university’s commitment to bringing courses like this to a wider public and being inclusive
-
that has made this possible,
-
and their decision to devote the resources to this kind of enterprise
-
makes me feel wonderful as a member of the Princeton faculty
-
and I know that my colleagues on the Princeton faculty feel as though very similarly to me
-
that this is a very special moment in the history of higher education that we are a part of,
-
that we have the privilege of being a part of.
-
And, I want to say also that, you know,
-
this is really part of a pretty long-standing tradition here at Princeton:
-
In our university we have a very generous financial aid package to students
-
who’ve come here from a very wide variety of backgrounds.
-
And one of the things that I think didn’t come across in the article by Malcolm Gladwell
-
is the extent to which that is significant in the ongoing life of Princeton.
-
We have certainly the best financial aid package in the world and it is something that we are very proud of.
-
Probably 60 percent of our students are on financial aid.
-
Our students are not required to take out loans to come here.
-
The financial aid is available to students not only from the United States but from all over the world,
-
and it extends from $5,000 to $50,000 depending on the needs of an individual family in a given year
-
and I have received questions over e-mail from students around the world asking
-
whether or not it’s possible for people from outside the United States to apply for financially aid.
-
And the answer is yes, there are no limitations on that,
-
and financial need is not taken into consideration when admissions decisions are made.
-
Over ten percent of our student body comes from outside the United States
-
and many of those students are on financial aid.
-
I want to talk today about the Malcolm Gladwell article but first I want to begin by discussing in some detail
-
the article that we read by C. Wright Mills which was written of course in 1959.
-
And I want to begin by welcoming the students from around the world
-
who are part of our seminar for today.
-
I should say at the outset that we invited a couple of more people to join us today and for technical reasons,
-
some of them are not up on the screen — they might pop up during the course of our conversation.
-
But for the time being, we are going to speak with the people that are there.
-
I’d like them to introduce themselves to us beginning with the person on the far left, Dipendra.
-
And then let’s go through each person.
-
And I’d like the each of you to say something about what you thought was most interesting,
-
something brief about what you thought was most interesting about Mills’s essay, “The Promise.”
-
Dipendra.
-
>> Hi, this is Di [from] Nepal.
-
And if you are wondering where Nepal is, we are in [inaudible] India [inaudible]. We’re a very small country.
-
I come from [inaudible]. My bachelors in rural development and I have a major in sociology as well.
-
Particular interested in this, today’s text by C. Wright Mills.
-
I’ve been very much fascinated for those examples of study relating to the institution of the society,
-
specifically at his out during the lecture regarding divorce and marriage.
-
That was one thing very much interesting to me.
-
Another thing we tried, at the last time, the text which is
-
that if you want to develop your socialism then you should plays very mean.
-
So, that, about the thing that have been striking…
-
>> Okay. Dipendra unfortunately the connection to you was not great
-
but I will summarize though that you thought that one of the most interesting things
-
has to do with the connection of the sociological imagination to marriage and divorce.
-
And, we will look forward to hearing more from you later, hopefully with a better connection.
-
Doug?
-
>> Yeah, hi, I’m Doug, I’m from Philadelphia.
-
I don’t know. “The Promise,” — I believe is the name of the paper —
-
my impression, it was really hard to understand — you know,
-
trying to put myself back in 1959 and trying to understand where it was coming from.
-
It seemed almost like he was just trying to focus on the psychology, I guess, of being trapped.
-
But I also want… I did understand the basic thing of where I was going with it.
-
>> Doug, could you tell us a little bit about yourself in Philadelphia.
-
>> Yeah, I’m a firefighter in Philadelphia.
-
34 years old which I think makes me the oldest member of the panel.
-
You know, I took a little bit of college.
-
After high school I was in the Navy most of the time.
-
And now I’m trying to get back in college.
-
>> And are you, are you talking to us from the firehouse right now?
-
>> No. No, (>> [laugh]) I can’t.
-
I can’t do that. [laugh] (>> [laugh])
-
Everything that I say is — what — my opinion; it has nothing to do with the Fire Department.
-
But no, I’m at my house and yeah, I’m excited to be here.
-
>> Okay. Thank you, Doug.
-
>> My name is Estela Diaz.
-
I’m a Princeton University student majoring in Sociology.
-
I’m originally from Los Angeles, California and currently living in Spanish Harlem in New York City.
-
One of the things I thought was most interesting is considering the sociological imagination
-
in context of the United States 2012 political campaign and the presidential election.
-
I’m just kind of considering how issues are framed —
-
Whether they are framed as personal issues or public issues, especially the economic downturn.
-
>> Fascinating. Is it Nana who’s next?
-
>> I’m Nana. I’m from Georgia.
-
It’s Caucasus not Georgia in USA.
-
>> [laugh].
-
>> I am working as a representative of Israeli delegation here in Georgia and Ukraine and in Belarus.
-
Also I have a travel company with my friend; we’re dealing only with incoming tourists,
-
And for me the most… I pay attention on the sociological imagination in the chapter one:
-
it was quite interesting for me how people can imagine the things in the world,
-
and also marriage and divorce, because in Georgia it’s quite complicated.
-
>> Thank you, Nana.
-
And then finally.
-
>> Hello, my name is Pavel [inaudible] University School of [inaudible]
-
and National Relations which is the case in Southwestern Russia.
-
I found this article very interesting because it’s referring to the effect
-
that our lives are just a moment in terms of historical change and even the…
-
so we have to think more, to think wider in this case.
-
>> That’s very interesting.
-
Okay, well, these are some very interesting ways of beginning our thinking
-
about what Mills was trying to say and what I’d like to do now with you guys is
-
to try to go through the essay in a little bit of detail —
-
from Kathmandu, to Siberia, to Georgia, to Spanish Harlem, to Philadelphia —
-
and talk about the meaning of some of these lines and how we should interpret them.
-
I want to begin with the first paragraph, the second line where Mills says,
-
“they sensed that within their everyday world, they cannot overcome their troubles
-
and this feel, and this feeling they are quite often correct.”
-
One question that I want to ask you is this:
-
is there some sense in which that line, and the essay as a whole, gives an impression to people
-
that if only they can develop a sociological imagination, that they can overcome their troubles?
-
And is that really realistic?
-
What are some of the dilemmas involved in thinking about this in such a way?
-
>> Yeah. I believe that was something that
-
had something to do a little bit more with this psychology of it, you know,
-
somebody kinda trapped in their own sometimes made-up shell.
-
It’s because they feel — I mean it’s almost like looking at this minute, you know, I was never able…
-
I wasn’t much of a person that was very smart coming out of high school, I guess,
-
so I didn’t take the college route.
-
And as I got older, I wanted to go to college but now this is a forwarding opportunity.
-
I feel like I’m widening now a little bit like from personal experience.
-
So that’s kinda like the way I look at it — like
-
instead of me [standing there] in my own shell, now I feel like I’m just through this course.
-
I’m feeling like I’m kind of getting over it.
-
>> And, is there a sense though — I’m curious to know — in which…
-
Does having a sociological imagination give us any legitimate reason to believe
-
that we are in a better position to overcome our personal troubles?
-
Or is that an unrealistic kind of thing to begin the essay with?
-
>> I didn’t personally interpret it as such. Instead I interpreted this repeated notion
-
of not being able to overcome one’s personal troubles —
-
I interpreted that as Mills arguing for a larger perspective, not necessarily saying
-
that having a sociological imagination will allow you to overcome troubles
-
but instead emphasizing that our troubles are not strictly derived from the individual.
-
So Mills is arguing that having that sociological imagination will give you a different perspective on your troubles
-
but it will not necessarily solve your troubles.
-
>> Very interesting. Would anyone else like to comment on this?
-
>> I think almost the same because I, I think it’s not depend to overcome the troubles,
-
it’s not coming from the sociological imagination.
-
You can you can solve your troubles and solve your problems without knowing it but it helps you quite a lot.
-
>> But are you sure about that, Nana?
-
Are you really sure that having a sociological imagination would help you in solving the personal troubles?
-
>> Eh. Like in Georgia [inaudible].
-
>> Oh, really? Could you say more about that?
-
>> Let’s say, in Georgia if you’re…
-
like, for people who are coming from abroad, it’s not easy to find some jobs.
-
If you are not an investor it’s not easy to find it.
-
If you know the sociological imagination, like to help
-
how people think about it, you will not come in Georgia and start your work here.
-
You will go to another country to find some job.
-
Let’s say, let’s say this example.
-
>> So, in other words, having the socio… that’s a really good answer.
-
Having the sociological imagination is going to perhaps one way of having a sociological imagination
-
is to know our probabilities, and understanding the probabilities means
-
that we can assess our chances and decide what we should try and what we shouldn’t try, right?
-
>> Yeah.
-
>> Okay. But let me ask you a question, Estela.
-
You’re a Princeton student, okay?
-
>> If you knew (>> Mhm.) the probabilities when you applied to Princeton of being accepted,
-
would you have ever tried?
-
>> I mean, I think I kind of did know the probabilities was less than ten percent acceptance rate.
-
And over, I think it’s, it was about 30,000 people who applied my year,
-
with only… with less than 2,000 of us being accepted, the probability was extremely low.
-
But you have to, in the case of applying to Princeton University,
-
I think there was something worth a lot more than… I think it was worth taking my chances.
-
>> But the thing is just: did having a sociological imagination and knowing the odds,
-
did that increase the chances of you applying? Or don’t you think
-
that there are some people who are having that knowledge might have said, “It’s not worth it to try at all”?
-
I mean, if somebody finds out that the chances of doing,
-
of succeeding in any field are small, does that knowledge necessarily help them in the end?
-
We’re assuming that it’s empowering to have that knowledge,
-
but I wonder if it could also be disempowering.
-
What do you… (>> I think it could…) Go ahead.
-
>> it could certainly be discouraging, especially if you consider Mills’ article in general,
-
he’s kind of taking away from the notion of individual agency and individual power.
-
So when you take that away, it does and can seem very discouraging.
-
>> Doug, what do you think about this?
-
>> Well, basically I think that Estela hit the nail right on the head.
-
That — you know — that sense of, you know, when like things are hopeless,
-
people are going to say, “Why am I going to put the effort in?”
-
But, if you realize, like Estela did, that you know, that doesn’t just define who you are,
-
that, you know, that 10%, if you’re going to part of that 10%,
-
you’re part of that ten percent like what are you going to do about it?
-
It is what it is, and that really, I think that could really be freeing for somebody
-
because that’s not going to really upset them if they turn around and get rejected.
-
They’ll say, okay, whatever, you know, although I was ready for that.
-
It’s kinda like a you know, “expect the”… “expect the worst,”
-
or “hope for the best and expect the worst” kind of thing, I guess.
-
And I don’t know if I am missing that point.
-
>> Let’s move on to the next part of the paper.
-
At the very beginning of the second paragraph, Mills says, “Underlying this sense of being trapped
-
are seemingly impersonal changes in the very structure of continent-wide societies.”
-
There were some discussion on the discussion boards
-
over the last few days about what Mills meant by impersonal changes.
-
And I thought that you guys did a very good job
-
of clarifying the issue for those who were confused, but what does this mean to you?
-
What are some of the kinds of impersonal changes
-
that affect you in the society in which you live as a way of conceiving of what Mills is talking about?
-
Dipendra, could you start?
-
>> I was very much interested in the previous paragraph
-
so I was about to speak but I lost my connection.
-
So, maybe I would rather go back to that paragraph and I’ll jump to this paragraph at the end.
-
>> Sure, why don’t you do that. (>> So, in the previous thing.) Go ahead, please do.
-
>> So, I have a different I have a, I have a different perspective on
-
that it does say, it is said that within the everyday works they cannot overcome the troubles.
-
I want to keep myself in this example.
-
I have my parents divorced.
-
So in this actually when my parents, then was suddenly, the problem that I’m facing in the world.
-
So, I, believe is facing this kind of problem and I was so… I have a small sister
-
and I have my mom crying in front of me every day and my dad was with another woman.
-
So, how I felt, it was like I felt that this was only me. This is only “I’m the guy” problem.
-
But sociological imagination, I think that in a broader perspective,
-
when I look at my society then I see a lot of people who get who get divorced so then, then I do is,
-
I simply hiding myself and say that, okay boy, this is, this is not only the way you move ahead.
-
It’s not, spend your whole life regretting because your dad married to another woman or something.
-
So, when I look at only… when I think that is my problem only, I feel I’m trapped in that problem.
-
But when I come out of my family, when I come out, when I look at my society then I feel a lot,
-
this is the broader perspective that I should look into and that really motivated me.
-
>> Well, I think that, that is a really wonderful statement because what you’re saying
-
is that you feel as though the understanding that your experience was not a personal problem
-
but was part of a larger trend and a larger public issue inspired you to feel empowered.
-
And that you decided that you are going to rise above your social circumstances
-
with that knowledge knowing that was not your fault
-
or knowing that this was not the fault of your family —
-
and I actually, I think that’s a really excellent response to my concern
-
and it’s really a nice response because I think that in the case of divorce,
-
it’s true that many children feel as though they are themselves the cause of their parents’ divorce
-
so they feel as though they are responsible for it and certainly it’s true
-
that their family members blame themselves, and I think it is the case that
-
if you know that you’re part of something larger and wider, perhaps that is actually empowering
-
to be able to get beyond it and move beyond it.
-
And yet I must tell you that I feel still nevertheless a certain concern over these lines
-
and what they imply in the essay because for many people, you know, their lives are just really hard.
-
And, it is going to be hard for them whether they know that they’re part of a larger social trend or not.
-
And the ability to rise beyond their social circumstances,
-
I worry, takes a lot more obviously than any kind of knowledge or understanding of this kind,
-
but perhaps that’s just obvious and not worth being overly concerned with.
-
By the way, in our Princeton Seminars, there are moments, as Estela will tell you, of complete silence.
-
And I encourage those moments in my seminar. I believe in silence.
-
I think it’s great for people to be able to sit and think for a second.
-
Sometimes we’ll have silence for 30 seconds in the room before somebody talks.
-
We shouldn’t always feel pressured to fill in every gap at every moment,
-
and no more so just because we happen to be on the Internet for 30,000 other students right now.
-
Does anybody else have anything they wanted to add to that before we move on there, then?
-
>> Yes. May I add something? It will be kind of question.
-
When you were talking in your lecture about sociological imagination,
-
what we find was mortgage and divorce — situations and issues.
-
I remember the words of Soviet secretary-general Joseph Stalin ’cause he once said to Averill Harriman.
-
He said, “The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of million is statistic.”
-
I’d like to know that I am not a fan of Joseph Stalin, and my opinion, he was a dictator.
-
That was just the first thing that came to my mind,
-
whether there is an argument, whether he said it or not.
-
So I wanted to ask a bit political question.
-
I understand that in terms of historical change, as also Mills noted,
-
our lives are only a moment so today anything around us could be revealed as a statistic —
-
even our lives can be a statistic within this scope
-
of the population size, and then the scope of many other issues.
-
So our president tells about wages.
-
When he tells about wages, he cites average wages data.
-
Why doesn’t he cite the lowest [inaudible], for example Tatiana
-
who is which a school teacher in Siberia in who has four children and tries to survive with four kids.
-
How do you think, professor? Can the government treat its people just as a statistic?
-
And where is the border of statistic and the real life?
-
>> Well, I think that it’s very tempting to use a single statistic,
-
and of course what a sociological imagination is going to do,
-
is going to try to encourage people to look at the variation,
-
and to try to explain the variation in a society.
-
And, I think that there’s always a tendency to try to put the focus in one place or the other
-
but your job is as a sociologist is to move toward an understanding and grasping
-
of that variation in which you just did in your wonderful comment
-
and that’s a great quote which I’m sure that I’ll be using in the future when I give this lecture again.
-
I want to ask you guys to take a peek though at the notion of
-
that first line in the essay, and I want to get back to this issue of impersonal changes.
-
Could you guys try to think about what that means,
-
and try to help the students who were concerned about that all on the website to reflect on that a little bit more?
-
What are some of the impersonal changes in your society?
-
Nana has gone off, why don’t we go to Doug?
-
>> When I look at this line, as far as impersonal changes,
-
I felt like that was something that, you know,
-
in a time, I mean, it was brought up before about what’s going on with the housing crisis,
-
with the job crisis and everything else.
-
And in a time when jobs are, you know, so few and far between,
-
somebody can very easily think of themselves “Well there’s something wrong with me that’s why I’m not working,”
-
when, if they look at the, you know, the way that everything is in society,
-
it’s not a personal change that you need to make,
-
it’s the way that the society is that, you know, the…
-
the structure and, as it goes, the very structure of the continent-wide society
-
that if there’s, there’s change made to the system,
-
not something that has to do with this one person —
-
like I feel like that line is trying to give somebody a little bit of hope you know,
-
like “Look, it’s not you! You have the ability, you just need to understand
-
that there’s a problem out there right now.” I think we’re just going
-
to need to try a little bit harder and don’t let yourself down and don’t feel like you’re trapped.
-
>> Okay. Estela?
-
>> No, I think he saw that very well.
-
I’m trying to think.
-
I’m looking at what he says the structure of continent-wide societies and just contextualizing this
-
in nineteen…, I mean, if we consider the effect of the Internet now in our very discussion here today,
-
where we were discussing this with people on various continents, various countries.
-
So looking at impersonal changes, that’s something far beyond our what he says as personal troubles,…
-
>> Yeah. I think that one of the things that concerns me about this point as well is that, you know,
-
the emphasis on, obviously, the impersonal changes and that as if they are always trapping us.
-
And I think that we have to have more a nuanced view of it — at least I would propose that —
-
and the, you know, the impersonal change of today of the Internet
-
obviously is also leading to possibilities like the one that we have before us right now.
-
And, I think that our job as sociologists
-
is to look at the ways in which impersonal changes not only trap us,
-
but also liberate us and potentially make us more free.
-
And I wonder whether or not anybody could present an example other than the Internet
-
of any kind of impersonal change in their own society.
-
Or perhaps the internet is the best one for your society right now that you’d like to refer to,
-
but in which the actual impersonal change has been liberating rather than simply constraining.
-
Remember silence is fine. Silence is good in the seminar.
-
Everyone can think.
-
>> I think that was a good example, try to recover other issues.
-
>> Okay. Well maybe we can ask our online viewers,
-
the other members of the class, to think about that issue a little bit as we move forward in the class.
-
I want to move on now to a discussion of the New Yorker article
-
that was written by the great writer, the great non-fiction writer, Malcolm Gladwell.
-
And I saw some questions on the discussion boards
-
about why I would have assigned this article for the first class.
-
And in fact, the article was assigned
-
for exactly the reason that many of you proposed in your answers to the person who asked that question:
-
because I believe it exemplifies the sociological imagination.
-
Can you guys hear me right now?
-
Yes? Okay, good.
-
So, let’s begin now by talking a little bit about Gladwell’s article.
-
Gladwell being a Canadian who came to the United States
-
and was kind of intrigued by the culture of New York City
-
in which he found that there were many people who were obsessed with Harvard in particular,
-
and who seemed to think that if they had gone there
-
that there was nothing of greater importance that could have happened to them in their lives.
-
And he wrote this essay based on, as we know,
-
based on the research of sociologist Jerome Karabel largely,
-
about the nature of admissions at Harvard, Princeton and Yale,
-
and the way in which it moved in the direction that it is in today.
-
And, one of the things that I found very interesting about the responses on the Internet to this
-
was that, there were many people who saw the decision
-
of the Ivy League Schools to look at the “whole person” rather than a single dimension
-
as meaning — as implying — that, that was somehow a false promise,
-
or that people have been excluded
-
that people, that they themselves were being promised something that wasn’t really fair or obtainable
-
when they were given the hope that they one day could achieve or go to an Ivy League School.
-
And I’m just curious about that response because my own feeling about it in looking at the way
-
that the system of college admissions emerged is that,
-
while I think it’s good that the largest group of students in the university
-
has gotten there because of their academic achievement,
-
I think that it is also true that there are so many other qualities in life
-
that make for a deserving and an interesting human being.
-
And, would we really want a college to only include the people who have the highest scores
-
rather than a system like the one that has been designed
-
which actually looks at a much wider variety of personal characteristics?
-
And I’m just curious about what your response was to some of those comments
-
and how you would design a system like this if it was up to you.
-
Dipendra.
-
>> Actually when I was going through this text,
-
what I’ve felt was the education system the admission system
-
that was there and unfortunately, in Nepal, I’ve been practicing that now.
-
So, we have the, actually a brief background of
-
the admission system that we have here and then I’ll get back to my point.
-
So, here at Nepal, what [we have] there are typically two different kinds of colleges or universities.
-
The primary targets of all the university and all the college here in Nepal is you should get at least good marks —
-
at least, [inaudible] more than 60 percent or more than three GPA —
-
so that you can get into good college or something like that.
-
And very few, very few colleges and universities — we count in hands or fingers —
-
that they’ll look overall student or they look at overall characteristics of students.
-
So it would depend, but I would like to say seeing, to look at examples
-
that I have seen here in Nepal, what I have come to conclude is typically,
-
there are two different university here that I would like to mention in Nepal.
-
The Tribhuvan University which is government owned university and Kathmandu University
-
that is privately owned university.
-
So, why does Tribhuvan University does it?
-
They don’t have a proper definite system of taking in students.
-
So, every time they can have a ticket of admission in that college.
-
They have let’s say you have crossed 50 percent then you’ll get into that university — and where I am now.
-
And before coming to this university, I actually dropped the Kathmandu University
-
because private university and which required rigorous competition.
-
They had added a baseline for academics.
-
We need to get at least 60 percent in your high school, then
-
you should be astounding in extra curricular activities,
-
you should be astounding in sports, you should be social, and so many characteristics.
-
And where the products that come out after from the universities after four years,
-
we can see a clear distinction here in Nepal:
-
Kathmandu University, which has a system of looking a student from all dimension,
-
the students are… they are very practical, they know a lot of things, you know, they are outgoing.
-
And while we look at the students of Tribhuvan University,
-
what I see is students are very much confined to books —
-
not even in textbooks: we have these papers here that means the questions that, the exams.
-
So there are some predicted questions and you go through that question and you will get questions out of that.
-
It is sometimes… that’s really a very difficult task at Tribhuvan University.
-
So, what I feel is, for a college student to get admission, academics should be one of the primary criteria,
-
but we should have also look at the students in overall —
-
how good they [inaudible] in society, how good they [inaudible] in sports.
-
That’s what I [think].
>> Thank you.
-
Thank you for that interesting comment, Dipendra.
-
Would anyone else like to comment on this?
-
>> Yes, may I comment?
>> Yes.
-
>> Because getting in is a very pressing problem for me.
-
Now I’m graduating in a few days, and then I’ll be… I have to find an advocate’s masters program.
-
And while I was reading “Getting In” article, I have a feeling you know,
-
well, the situation that existed in the beginning of the twentieth Century in Harvard University and Yale etc.
-
With standardized tests now exists in Russia,
-
in the twenty-first century, in the beginning of the twenty-first century.
-
So, I think it’s not a good way to admit students just on the basis of standardized tests.
-
Academic records is a very is a very… is an important problem
-
but while admitting they should see…
-
they should see the person[’s] hope — hope as in hope —, his background, his experience,
-
what he can do, maybe… just not only his studies.
-
>> So, it’s interesting to hear your perspectives on this, and it is true that outside the United States,
-
that the standards are usually much more narrow for admissions decisions.
-
And I think that, that is what accounted for some of the surprise
-
that initially came on to the site about the way that it’s done here in the United States.
-
I want to, oh, I see we have another person that just joined us.
-
Another Princeton student named Dixon Lee.
-
Hi, Dixon.
-
>> Hi, Mitch.
-
>> So, we’re talking right now about the Malcolm Gladwell essay
-
and one of the interesting points that I want to sort of end by thinking about,
-
is something that came up a lot on the discussion boards
-
which was the study that was cited — and this is for everybody, not just for Dixon —
-
the study that was cited by Gladwell, by my colleague Alan Krueger, who did a study of the people
-
who were — let’s say “hypothetically,” as it’s described in the article —
-
accepted into a state university like Penn State, at a private university like the University of Pennsylvania.
-
And what was his point in making that comparison and what did he find?
-
Does anybody remember?
-
It certainly elicited a lot of response on the discussion boards.
-
>> Um. So they referred to it as comparing apples to apples.
-
And what they discovered is that both the person who decides to go to the more elite university —
-
“elites” — and the person who decides to go to the state school, both do well in the future.
-
With the finding of one exception, which is those from the lowest economic strata.
-
Those from this strata were seen as benefiting from the elite’s education.
-
And it didn’t say… it didn’t explain this in any way but that was the finding.
-
>> Can anybody explain — thank you Estela — Can anybody explain to us what was the logic of the article?
-
He used the words “selection” and “treatment”, and what was the exact way
-
in which he went about in doing his study, in which those words became so important?
-
What was he measuring? What was he comparing?
-
Does anybody have any memory of that aspect of the article?
-
What was Krueger doing there?
-
In the traditional — it’s just to jog your memory —
-
in the traditional measures of the impact of an Ivy League education,
-
comparisons have been made between the salaries of people
-
who graduated from Ivy League Schools and the salaries of people
-
who graduated from other schools, and what Kruger said was, “Let’s change the comparison.”
-
Instead of comparing it in that way, how did we do it?
-
He compared the people who were the same person.
-
He only took people who were graduated, who were admitted
-
both to private schools — to Ivy League Schools — and to other schools
-
and who chose, for some reason, to go to the other school instead.
-
And he compared those same people against the average people who came out of Ivy League Schools
-
and he found out that those people actually did just as well as the people who went to Ivy League Schools.
-
And so his point was, that it was not necessarily the treatment
-
of going to an Ivy League School that mattered — in terms of the success of people —
-
but it was instead the selection into the system from the very beginning
-
of certain kinds of people that were destined to be successful.
-
And he basically, despite the fact that he’s a Princeton professor
-
and has every reason to be biased in favor of the Ivy League,
-
he concluded that the impact of the Ivy League is not nearly as great
-
as it’s taken to be by the wider society and the wider world.
-
Now it seems to me that that kind of analysis that Krueger did,
-
is in the best tradition of the sociological imagination.
-
And it seems to me that, that kind of information should be empowering to many people,
-
regardless of whether or not they would even want to come to Princeton or some other Ivy League School.
-
Did you guys… did that information make a similar impression on you guys?
-
What effect did it have on you to read that part of the article?
-
>> Yeah, I understood. Yeah, I understand what you’re saying.
-
The one quote that he has here is “having Penn on your resume opens doors.”
-
And I do notice that there is that sort of the meanest attitude when it comes to society in general.
-
People turn and maybe look at certain people a certain kind of way — they put them up on a pedestal —
-
and you know, it can sometimes be a little unfortunate that they would do something like that
-
but you know, I understand; and
-
because there’s such an emphasis that’s been put on for so long about who’s coming out of where —
-
just, you know, how, also like what he said earlier in the article,
-
you know, when he… when somebody said they were from Harvard it was like everybody
-
in the room got quiet you know and they were like, “Oh, this guy is from Harvard!”
-
Just like I understand that’s what he was explaining.
-
And it kind of seems to me like — I’m not sure if I got [it] right,
-
but what he was saying was that some of the [students]
-
well, did really well in the lower-tiered school — like the state school — that they only did
-
as good as the people who were like average students in the Ivy League School.
-
>> No, no, no, no, no, no. It was exactly the opposite of that.
-
He is basically saying that if you took the same person who is admitted to both,
-
then it’s really ultimately the individual who mattered more than (>> Okay.) the social context.
-
>> Okay, so, yes. I, I just, I understood that what he was talking about with that, you know,
-
having Penn on your resume, that’s basically, you know, the whole, the general thing basically.
-
Your dream is what you’re looking at.
-
You know, when you’re coming out of that school, you’re grand and people look at
-
that and they think that when you’re coming out of Penn or Harvard, you’re like a Mercedes.
-
>> Right. But his… >> When you’re coming out of Penn State,…
-
>> But his point though is — and it’s important to clarify this
-
and make sure that we get on the same page on this point —
-
is that his point is that when you look at the statistical data for large numbers of people,
-
then those anecdotal stories actually don’t have as much explanatory value
-
as the analysis that he did would have.
-
Dixon, what do you think about this?
-
>> So, when I was reading over it, I was interested to see that he says that
-
the person who is accepted to Penn and the person who’s accepted to Penn State would do the same thing
-
but then I was wondering, so admissions factors don’t always account for everything that person is capable of.
-
So, I think it might have been just outside of the scope for his project.
-
But I think that I would have been interested at this project have continued and then look at —
-
so — what are the things that the [inaudible] students for and how did those affect people in the upper strata
-
that normally wouldn’t be affected by the treatment
-
that Princeton gives the, like the, really lower, lower strata that [inaudible] was talking about earlier.
-
>> Good. That’s very interesting.
-
So, basically, I hope that we can use Alan Krueger’s study
-
as a way of getting and thinking more about the questions that I raised
-
at the end of the first lecture of how it is that the individual makes a difference.
-
And the extent to which we are truly trapped by certain social circumstances.
-
Sometimes, we imagine that the social circumstances that are surrounding us
-
are trapping us in ways that they actually are not, and it takes constant sociological investigation
-
to know the difference between a real trap and an illusion of one.
-
So, I want to end today’s discussion by just saying a little bit about where we’re going next.
-
I want to say, first of all, that this was an experiment today.
-
I know that the discussion was by no means perfect
-
although it was as good as I could have ever hoped from a group of students around the world
-
and I thought that your comments in the seminar today were really great and interesting and a wonderful beginning.
-
But technically it could be improved and we will certainly work on that in the weeks to come.
-
I really appreciate the patience of everybody who’s watching
-
as well as your interest and I appreciate your support
-
and your understanding that we are part now of a really big experiment.
-
We’re trying to do something new and I suspect that we’re going to learn a lot along the way.
-
When we meet the next time in the online forum,
-
we’re going to include some new people that were not here today; we’ll also have some familiar faces.
-
We’ll try to substitute some new people in, to keep the conversation representing different parts of the world.
-
And, we will try to do some things to improve it each time
-
until we really get it to a point where it is something that is working really well and we are really happy with it.
-
But I must say that for a first time today, for a first effort, I’m really pleased with this.
-
I also, I wanted to say that I was really excited to see the large number of study groups
-
that had formed from around the world and I wanted to also give a special welcome to the people
-
that are clearly participating in the class from Iran and from Afghanistan —
-
two countries which do not have the greatest relationship officially with the United States today
-
but that is certainly not due to any ill feeling on the part of Americans
-
and we certainly all believe that these kinds of contacts are the ones that we should be having
-
and I hope that in our future online seminars
-
that we can have representatives from Iran and from Afghanistan with us as well.
-
So, I ’m going to say goodbye to you all now.
-
So, thank all of you online for participating in this wonderful experiment
-
and I look forward to seeing you this Monday with the second lecture,
-
in the discussion boards which I will be monitoring very carefully,
-
and of course, in our second online seminar next Wednesday.