Any monoculture in higher education would be bad. It just turns out that the particular monoculture we have is horrible.

Via Culture Links, 3/18/2026 by Arnold Kling

Yascha Mounk writes,

If it looks like a professional, talks like a professional, and earns like a professional, then it is probably a professional—with all the cultural and ideological accoutrements that nowadays come with that status.

…the Brooklynization of the Bourgeoisie. Its ultimate harm stems from the representation gap that has opened up between ordinary citizens and those calling the shots in society—and the counterproductive rebellion it inspired.

all the schools at the top range of prestige have over the past decades come to resemble each other to a remarkable degree. However much their respective college tour guides may wax lyrical to visiting high school seniors about their idiosyncratic local traditions, Harvard and Princeton, Yale and Stanford, Duke and Columbia are all examples of what biologists call “convergent evolution.” It is not just in the substance of their prevailing views that they constantly copy and emulate each other; it is also in the design of their curricula, in the way they finance their institutions, and in the criteria they use to select their undergraduate classes.

If you visit American suburbia, you will see a flattening of the culture. The same shopping malls, the same restaurant and retail chains the same eateries. College has flattened similarly—right down to the eateries. In 1963, the culture at Princeton differed from that at Yale or Harvard or Swarthmore. Now, they have homogenized. Everywhere there are the same upper-middle-class amenities (fitness centers, performing arts centers) and the same administrators hovering over “student life.”

Mounk talks about the need for viewpoint diversity. But I see a broader need for diversity in higher education. Any monoculture in higher education would be bad. It just turns out that the particular monoculture we have is horrible.