The Ivy League’s Inevitable Demise
Engaging College Admissions Officers and DMV Workers
Have you ever encountered a college admissions officer? Who do they remind you of? Well, let’s just say they bear a striking resemblance to those folks at the DMV. In a kinder light, they are individuals who have made the best of limited options. But if we’re being a bit cruel, they are midwits on a power trip. Picture them as slightly less cynical, a little skinnier, and sporting higher-end glasses. But at their core, both college admissions officers and DMV workers embody the same archetype: the ultimate low busybody.
DMV workers afflict the vast population of drivers with their mediocrity. Admissions officers, on the other hand, affect a smaller group of people—the ones who either attend or don’t attend college because of them. And within that subset, only a select few make it to the colleges that truly matter—the Ivy League institutions that supposedly produce the leaders of the Western World.
All higher education institutions share a common middle layer: admissions officers and a horde of related bureaucrats who effectively run the show. Take Stanford University, for example, which boasts a staggering 15,750 non-teaching employees—nearly double the number of undergraduates and seven times the faculty count.
The responsibility for the decline of the Ivy League lies not with wokeness, diversity hires, or a naive donor class, but with the very people who should be upholding its standards: the middle management.
The Conquest Laws
Robert Conquest, a renowned historian and long-time research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, formulated three laws that shed light on the decay of institutions:
- Everyone is reactionary about what they know best.
- Any organization not explicitly right-wing will eventually become left-wing.
- The simplest way to explain an organization’s behavior is to assume it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies.
These laws depict the gradual deterioration of institutions. They reveal why institutions inevitably lean left, especially in countries like America where explicitly right-wing policies have been abandoned, even within supposedly right-wing organizations.
- Institutions begin as “reactionary,” established by individuals deeply knowledgeable about their purpose.
- Over time, the original founders depart, and less knowledgeable individuals take the reins. These newcomers, lacking the same passion and dedication, push the institution towards a less meritocratic and more “equal” structure because they themselves lack merit.
- Unless there are specific rules in place to prevent decay, the institution will continue drifting leftward, ultimately becoming a microcosm of socialism—a self-serving organization that prioritizes the well-being of its members over any meaningful purpose or progress.
This covers the first two Conquest Laws, but it’s the third law that holds the true revelation. At first glance, it may seem incomprehensible, but it essentially suggests that most non-reactionary institutions are zombies. They may appear alive, going about their business, but their true aim is to survive long enough to infect other institutions with their disease.
Another way to understand this concept is through the acronym POSIWID, used by systems engineers, which stands for “the Purpose Of a System Is What It Does.” In essence, the outcomes of a system reveal its true nature more reliably than the intentions of its creators.
For instance, consider most SaaS (software as a service) companies. Their founders initially aim to create systems that are cheaper and more efficient. However, over time, do these systems actually achieve those goals? If you’ve worked in a major corporation, you’ll likely find that the answer is rarely. Many corporations adopt expensive software systems only to discover that things are no more efficient than when they relied on paper. People end up working longer hours, and costs skyrocket.
Most SaaS companies, in reality, make things less efficient while costing more money. This isn’t a failure on their part; it’s their true purpose—to serve as a feast for the enemies of their original founders. These enemies prefer things to be more expensive and less efficient because they lack the ability, knowledge, or desire to do better.
The Chaos of Elite Universities
If there’s an institution that perfectly exemplifies being run by a cabal of its enemies, it’s America’s elite universities. Harvard, for instance, was founded in 1636 with a mission to guide students towards eternal life through knowledge of God and Jesus Christ. Today, Harvard seems to exist for the exact opposite purpose. Even if we consider its 1836 motto ”VERITAS” as its true mission, it becomes evident that Harvard primarily seeks to obscure the truth rather than reveal it. This is because the enemies who run the institution cannot grasp the truth and resent those who can.
I’m not referring to woke diversity hires or cynical elitist donors seeking social status. It’s not even about wokeness itself and its manipulative propaganda. The true enemies of Harvard University are the very people Conquest warned us about—the midwit managers in charge of the admissions department.
DMV workers despise you, and it’s no secret. Similarly, the Harvard admissions department harbors disdain for its own students. The elite students are viewed as class enemies by the admissions officers, who often come from middle or lower-class backgrounds. Over time, these admissions officers, like typical middle managers, dismantle the stringent rules that once made the institution elite. There are no rules more explicitly right-wing than exceptionally high admissions standards, which have long preserved the importance of the Ivy League. However, the rot eventually became too pervasive, and the managers—the enemies of truth—found a way to dismantle those standards and open the floodgates to their own class.
The result is not the elevation of the masses to elite status, which is impossible. Instead, it leads to chaos. And chaos has a distinct appearance—it’s the poop on the street, the open-air drug markets, the food deserts, and the bread lines. Chaos is not just anything; it’s the shape of things when a better shape is not enforced by those who care.
This is precisely Conquest’s point about institutions. If we fail to uphold reactionary right-wing rules like elitism and meritocracy within them, they won’t simply dissolve into nothingness. Instead, they transform into the undead, determined to turn every institution into a hideous monster like themselves. We’ve witnessed this phenomenon in countless experiments with communism worldwide, and it’s undeniably happening here.
Ironically, Conquest gained fame as a historian for exposing the mass murders and atrocities committed by communist regimes. However, he was also a poet, and in addition to his famous laws about institutional decline, he explicitly warned about the consequences of bureaucratic dominance in academia:
‘Those teach who can’t do’ runs the dictum,
But for some even that’s out of reach:
They can’t even teach—so they’ve picked ’em
To teach other people to teach.
Then alas for the next generation,
For the pots fairly crackle with thorn.
Where psychology meets education,
A terrible bullsh-t is born.’
How can we ensure a fair and unbiased evaluation of applicants in the admissions process while still maintaining a commitment to excellence and meritocracy
Any other bureaucratic middle managers, have allowed their resentment and envy to guide their decisions. Instead of seeking out the best and brightest students to uphold the standards of excellence that Harvard once stood for, they prioritize diversity quotas and social justice narratives. They aim to create a student body that is a reflection of their own mediocrity, rather than a group of individuals who have earned their place through merit and hard work.
This phenomenon is not unique to Harvard. Elite universities across the country have fallen victim to this same decay. They have strayed from their original purpose of cultivating intellectual curiosity and producing future leaders. Instead, they have become breeding grounds for ideological conformity and social engineering.
The problem lies with the admissions officers and the middle management that perpetuates this decay. These individuals lack the passion and dedication that the original founders had. They are more concerned with their own power and status within the institution than with upholding its true purpose. They have succumbed to the prevailing left-wing ideology and have turned their institutions into echo chambers that stifle intellectual diversity and free thought.
So, how do we address this issue? It starts with recognizing the problem and holding those responsible accountable. It requires a reevaluation of the values and principles that these institutions were built upon. It demands a return to meritocracy and a commitment to excellence.
Moreover, it is crucial to foster a culture that values intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and open dialogue. This means creating an environment where students and faculty feel free to express their ideas and challenge the status quo without fear of retribution. It involves diversifying the perspectives and backgrounds of the admissions officers themselves, to ensure a fair and unbiased evaluation of applicants.
Ultimately, the transformation of elite universities into centers of ideological conformity should be cause for concern for all. These institutions play a pivotal role in shaping the future leaders of our society. If they continue down their current path, we risk losing the intellectual vitality and diversity that is necessary for progress and innovation.
It is time to engage with college admissions officers and DMV workers, not with disdain or cruelty, but with a demand for accountability and excellence. We must challenge the prevailing ideology and restore the true purpose of these institutions. Only then can we reclaim the integrity and value of higher education.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
