In Gatto’s “Against School,” he notes, “compulsory schooling was to make a sort of surgical incision into the prospective unity of these underclass,” (36). In my second-hand experience, the public school system certainly does this, by operating on local funding, and allowing subtle inequalities to arise depending on a region’s income level, thus determining a school’s quality. I would add to Gatto’s argument that while disunifying the bottom of the ladder, the nation’s school system indeed brings the upper echelon together in higher education. While independent efforts are fighting to change this aspect of the college admission process, accessibility depends on a student’s means, thereby resulting in the amalgamation of individuals of a certain financial status. Again, many institutions (including Williams) attempt to fight this current within the system, but can only do so to a point. Our college maintains its elitism by offering preferential admission to students of legacy status and athletes, the latter often reflecting increased availability to necessary resources. While this previous claim may be controversial, the fact that Williams prides itself on selecting top students is not, and oftentimes tutors, some form of test-prep, or simply secondary school with great resources hide behind those outstanding GPAs and test scores. With its sizable barriers to entry, I believe that Williams certainly plays a role in maintaining power in the elite, producing–albeit liberally educated–citizens to sustain and pass on the authority to the next generation (via alumni connections perhaps). Moreover, in maintaining a large endowment, the College acknowledges the role such wealth can have in boosting its prestige, thereby reflecting an awareness of rankings at the institutional—rather than the individual as in Gatto’s discussion—level. While simultaneously perpetuating the problem, the College remains stuck within the system as well, and thus can solely redefine the education system within such confines.