An Ivy League of Their Own

 Walter Kirn's book "Lost in the Meritocracy" is both revealing personal memoir and biting social commentary.  It's a short book that focuses mostly on Kirn's time as an undergraduate at Princeton in the 70's. Clearly a gifted student Kirn attended high school in rural Minnesota where his considerable academic talent mixed with a strong need to please authority figures. While that combination served him well in the relatively (but not completely) safe environment of secondary school, it was nearly his undoing on the all too worldly campus of Princeton.

Kirn had the intelligence needed to succeed in the Ivy League.  But the 70's were an odd time in much of the elite educational establishment (especially in the arts) when experimentation and drugs were rampant, and new academic theories were sprouting everywhere.  Anything was possible, and just about anything could pass as profound. The academy was little help in differentiating worthless chaff from lasting contributions.  And if the establishment couldn't tell the difference, what chance did a naive boy from the sticks have whose strongest desire was to please those in authority?

Kirn was ill-equipped to deal with the varied scene at Princeton. He just wanted to get along.  Little did he know that just about everyone else was faking it as well.  He was looking for security and truth but found tentative exploration and fraudulence. I'm sure there was plenty of valuable work and teaching going on there at that time. But Kirn got little to no help in finding it.

I take the time to write this because I had a similar Ivy League experience in the early 70's.  Similar background, similar experience, different campus, different field. Like Kirn I felt that my real education began after I left. I didn't have the strength and discernment to know what I wanted and figure out how to get it. Doing what was expected of me is what got me there, and that was pretty much my only strategy. It didn't work very well for me either.

First of all i was totally lacking in social skills and sophistication. My musical abilities got me into elite circles that I could handle musically but not socially.  At Harvard I played first continuo in a superb performance of the complete Bach St Matthew Passion, a great experience at any age, particularly so for a college freshman.  But as a consequence I attended a small dinner party for a world famous Boston Symphony guest conductor who happened to be gay.  I was by far the youngest there, and I barely knew what might be in a gin and tonic. The sexual politics were way more than I could understand.  At another occasion I was left backstage after a BSO performance to babysit an important elderly Symphony patron for a spell. No clue what to do. Again more than my limited social skills could manage. I was an oddity there. There was no well established path for young musical talent. My musical experiences were at a high level but they were extracurricular. There was no hand holding or guidance in the social arena.  It was sink or swim.  I pretty much sank.

Remember how things changed there during the 60's.  Early in the decade students were required to wear a jacket and tie to get a meal at the dining hall.  When I arrived in 1970 nobody told anyone what to wear.  The students in the room across the hall were stoned 24/7 and rarely even showered.  In the late 60's the tear gas was flying in Harvard Square.  Students and faculty both called into question the moral authority of the institution.  Traditional and aesthetic standards also suffered.  Suddenly almost anything was acceptable, and the lack of standards was paradoxically exacerbated by Ivy League arrogance.  Students were told from Day One that they had been chosen to lead the world.  So if the institution itself didn't have the courage to be appropriately critical, then how could these future leaders produce anything that was less than brilliant?

I remember a performance of a new avant-garde piece involving prepared piano and several other performers. Far out stuff with no explanations.  At some point something apparently went wrong with the piano and the performance seemed to stop, A man came onstage and futzed with the piano. Was this part of the piece?  Was it not?  We had no idea, and it was clearly not cool to ask.  And to voice annoyance about the interruption or the ambiguity was tantamount to admitting you had voted for Nixon (which I had not). Still seems like mob rule to me, but at the time I was intimidated. (I suspect that that intimidation continues today in the form of political correctness, which still makes me uncomfortable.)

These days education is much more practical. Students are preparing for careers early on. Everyone is worried about getting a job after school. No time for obscure theories and mumbo jumbo. Students just want to know how to get a leg up, how to get a competitive edge.

Well, that approach has its limitations as well. Less time to explore new directions. Nose constantly to the grindstone. Very competitive. But it does weed out much of the bullshit from the academy, and that is welcome.

I do think a traditional liberal arts education is not for everyone. This country invests far too little in high quality trade schools. And we should go to school when we're ready to learn, not when the guidance counselor tells us to go.  That being said I think I'll just be grateful that it's not 1970. Sometimes things do get better.