Reflections on "Excellent Sheep" by William Deresiewicz

I read Excellent Sheep as I was starting the college application process. This book had a significant impact on the schools I decided to apply to and changed the way I think about a college education.

Excellent Sheep is a critique of the American college application process and of elite educational institutions as a whole. Deresiewicz himself graduated from Columbia University, an Ivy League school, and taught English at Yale, another Ivy League institution. However, the problem Deresiewicz highlights is the failure of top schools to generate independent and curious thinkers. Instead, Harvard, Yale, and others are pushing out graduates who lack purpose and are content with pursuing "generic" careers in finance or consulting.

While I don't believe this is wholly the case, I've seen first-hand how many of my friends and classmates believe that "making it" in life constitutes working 80 hours a week at private equity firm in NYC or getting internships at firms like BCG and Deloitte. To be clear, there is nothing wrong with these careers—they are challenging, interesting, and pay a ton of money—but Deresiewicz argues that students only gravitate towards these careers because they are considered "safe" and necessary to become "successful."

Excellent Sheep has prompted me to rethink what "success" means to me. Deresiewicz would agree that to lead a meaningful life means constantly learning and taking risks, and finding ways to benefit society along the way. Deresiewicz is saddened by the sell-out culture and fear of failure that plagues Ivy League graduates. He argues there is no courage in consulting or finance. Courage is walking away from hundreds of thousands of dollars because you know your passions belong somewhere else.

For myself, I'm still figuring out what success means to me. I definitely place less emphasis on money than I did a few years ago. A meaningful life for me would involve creating content. Whether it's through this blog or another medium, I find a lot of joy in sharing my knowledge and experiences with others. When it comes to a career, I would prefer flexibility over a large salary. The freedom to work from anywhere in the world would allow me to travel and live in different countries. My current belief is that I would find it more meaningful to spend my 20s experiencing unfamiliar cultures than to build a career in finance or consulting.

I don't expect my goals and values to remain constant. I am almost certain that my ideal life path will change as I meet new people and learn new things. However, Excellent Sheep has made it clear that "success" is not a single state. It does not require an elite education, a 6 figure salary, or a position at a prestigious firm. To conclude, I would like to share 3 ideas from the book that stuck out to me. I don't necessarily agree with them all, but I think they are all valuable to ponder.

The system is rigged

One of the key concepts I haven't gone into yet is Deresiewicz's critique of the college application process. As much as we like to believe, applying to college in America is not a meritocracy. Deresiewicz notes, in America's top schools, "diversity of sex and race has become a cover, even an alibi, for increasing economic resegregation." When extracurriculars are key to an acceptance, it's easy to see why poor students might find it harder to succeed. It's the same with standardized testing. One of my favorite quotes from the book is:

Many of Deresiewicz's arguments are echoed by Malcolm Gladwell in his podcast Revisionist History. In Season 1, Episode 4, Gladwell discusses how low-income students are often trapped and denied access to opportunities such as college. Despite efforts by top schools like Harvard who have offered free attendance to students coming from families making less than $65,000 a year, there has been little change to actual number of poor students attending. Gladwell says:

The problem is not with accessibility to college after acceptance, the problem is that poor students have so much stacked against them that many don't even make it to the point where they can apply and get accepted in the first place.

Should college even be a meritocracy?

Part of Deresiewicz's criticism is the argument that elite institutions uphold the social order and perpetuate inequality. According to Deresiewicz, "Kids at prestigious schools... receive an endless string of second chances." At the same time, "Students at places like Cleveland State are not supported by a platoon of advisors and tutors... to write out excuses for late work, give them extra help when they need it, or pick them up when they fall down." Institutions like Cleveland state train their graduates "to occupy positions somewhere in the middle of the class system, in the depths of one bureaucracy or other."

Why should society function this way? Maybe the best and brightest minds should get the most resources, but should we intentionally train students that couldn't make it into top schools to be cogs in the machine? Why don't we afford everyone the opportunity to have second chances? I don't have the answers to these questions, but I think we should all think about it. Another one of my favorite quotes from the book summarizes this well:

College is what you make of it

It's easy to get caught up in thinking that college is be all end all for your education. It's a mindset that I get stuck with sometimes. However, learning is a life-long process. College should make you curious and willing to take intellectual risks. The rest of your life should be spent pursuing ideas and creating interesting things. Starting a business, publishing a book, or conducting an experiment requires curiosity and a desire to know more about the world. College is one of the best places to practice honing these qualities because there is very little risk. As a young person, I don't have much money to lose or many obligations to fill. As a college student, risking it all isn't risking much. It should be comforting to know that even if your business fails or your project doesn't get off the ground, the worst case scenario is not that bad.

I have one final quote from the book that ties this idea up nicely: