By Owen Smith
It is a truth universally acknowledged by any knowledgeable high school student that a college is only as valuable as its ranking. One may speak naively of “affordability” and “community,” but such words matter not in comparison to a single-digit acceptance rate. In this enlightened era, we understand that learning has surpassed being about curiosity and growth, it is about proximity to a recognizable, prestigious name.
However, an alarming inefficiency persists. Our nation is overrun with thousands of colleges, many accepting students with alarming generosity. These institutions recklessly offer education to the middle class, the working class, and even to those who have never hired a tutor for the SAT. Such inclusivity dilutes the prestige economy. When everyone can attend college, how are we to differentiate the truly superior seventeen-year olds from the simply adequate?
I therefore propose a bold reform: eliminate the bottom 95 percent of colleges. This will streamline the college system into something far more efficient. Under this system, a student will either gain admission to a top-tier institution, or graciously accept that higher education was never destined for them.
The benefits are numerous. First, we will spare students the emotional labor of pretending that most universities matter. Who wants to admit they’re going to any school not in the top 20? Without lower-ranked schools, there will be no graduation announcements featuring logos unfamiliar to the public.
Second, we shall be able to distinguish those with merit from those without it. Intelligence will, obviously, be measured by the ability to secure admission into the remaining elite institutions. Wealth, of course, will serve as a helpful indicator of dedication. The foolish notion that talent might exist within the disenfranchised will quietly disappear.
Third, the economy at large will benefit. Professors at closed institutions may redirect their energy toward more essential tasks, like tutoring the already exceptional. Students not admitted to the top five percent can enter the workforce immediately, supporting the intelligent and admiring their success from a respectful distance.
Some critics may object that restricting access to education undermines the concept of higher education as a whole. To this I respond by saying that is complete nonsense. By narrowing opportunity, we enhance market value. After all, if education were broadly accessible, it might be mistaken for a public good rather than a luxury.
In short, by eliminating the vast amount of colleges that recklessly educate the masses, we shall preserve what truly matters, that being prestige unharmed by accessibility, ambition unmarked by fairness, and a nation secure in the knowledge that your worth is best measured by ranking.
Welcome to The Shield‘s annual satire section. Writers use satire to improve a problem in society. Sometimes readers misunderstand the satire as they do not recognize the hyperbole, irony, rhetorical questions, sarcasm, and understatements. Readers may mistake the satirical solution for the actual solution that the writer proposes. The ideas in these satire stories do not necessarily represent the opinions of The Shield or Westmont. If one is confused about satire, please contact a friendly neighborhood English teacher.